My Letter to the Editor of the FT re. Education

Below is my letter to the editor of the FT in response to a few articles published in today's edition on education and the failings of the current system. Let's see if it's good enough to be selected for being published!

I’ll follow up with another post outlining my views on the causes of the observed failing.

__________________
Dear Sir,

In his article Brian Groom (Education system ‘failing business and workforce’, Feb 21) discusses the skills and training that are lacking in young people ranging from poor levels of literacy, numeracy to interpersonal skills. Certainly professionalism at work means adopting a certain presentation and style of interaction. This has to either be learnt through observation or instilled through education. We are back at the starting point of tackling a social issue, where young people do not have a role model to absorb these life skills from and education is not filling the void.

As a 28 year old, I am perhaps of the generation immediately preceding the one being described as “lost” which is facing record high unemployment and rightfully causing much concern.

I fear that the approach being taken to address the issue, today as well as in the past, is inherently ineffective. There may be much wisdom amongst the experienced politicians and educationists but they are severely lacking in empathy towards a young generation which even I at my age feel disconnected from. We have to create solutions that tackle the true cause which is social in nature and deliver it through the education system in a design that is appealing to the recipients, the young people themselves. Imposition will only face a reluctant audience.

A doctor should prescribe the medication but it is the patient’s prerogative to select the honey flavoured syrup over the orange flavoured one.

I am not an educationist but I have spent some limited time thinking about this subject while working on a documentary and helping to kick-start a campaign by young people to tackle these issues of young people. A solution needs to be found through a dialogue between young people (NEETs, current students, recent students, etc) and policy makers; this is currently missing but is desperately needed when determining what shape policy should take so it will be adopted rather than be resisted.

Yours Faithfully,

Miss Riddhi Bhalla
Volunteer for Change the Future

Nokia Lumia with Windows vs. Apple iPhone

Perhaps a late awakening, but my recent purchase of the excellent Nokia Lumia (yes, that’s Windows) hit home the truth that the iPhone is now outdated.

If I make a list of what were and have continued to be the points of fascination withthe  iPhone, I now find most points to either be no longer applicable or no longer exclusive to Apple.

-          Functionality – ease of use and interaction, responsive

-          A novel framework that my life has adapted to – calendar entries, FB events, email feeds, twitter, google maps, music, etc

-          Simplicity – the organization of information and user interface seemed almost intuitive and logical to the point where I at times felt there could be no other way

Well, what’s changed?

Our lives. When I got my iPhone 3GS 2 years ago, twitter didn’t dominate my life. I had fewer feeds from numerous accounts to keep on top of. My FB friend list was around 350 and I probably only used one calendar, if even that.

Today, the amount of information from numerous sources has made the same Apple IOS framework obsolete. The concept of finding an app to do specifically one function and load it on a phone to make it your own is not optimal for my use. I end up juggling between apps or downloading a new app like Tweetdeck to try and replicate FB, linked in, etc but do I really stop using the FB app entirely? No, I still need that for events, messages etc.  The apps just multiply and I get lost juggling between them. Also in case you haven’t noticed, closing them down is critical to maintain an iPhone that functions smoothly.

Instead what I want from my phone now is for it to be smarter than that. I don’t want a blank canvas that I can pile up with gzillion apps to focus on individual functions. That leads to overlap and inefficiency. Now I have tweetdeck, and the FB app, the FB messenger app, the linked in app, and then the texts I receive from people in my contact book, emails…the communication channels have multiplied and the IOS can only offer app over app to address one, or some of these but at least until now, it has not really addressed it holistically.

Ah. But Windows 7 on my Lumia has.

The People function is the answer to avoid having 11 apps all with the same purpose o ffunneling communication of different formats from your contacts that come through different channels. They have clearly gone back to basics and mapped how information flows and how we access this information.  So built into this phone is the basic concept that no matter what channel John Smith in my address book chooses to send out information (text, FB, tweet, linked in, email, phone call etc) – all those feeds should be brought together under his name and my phone should be smart enough to recognize that John Smith on facebook is the same john.smith@email.com in my email contacts hence  pool the information and cross reference. The Lumia automatically cross references all these profiles on your phone and on all the accounts you disclose to it.

Apply this to pictures – all your facebook albums are automatically pulled into the phones links so when you access your phone albums you can immediately get to all your facebook pictures without jumping screens and waiting ages for it to load up. The smoothness of this operation is remarkable.

The appearance itself it pretty remarkable. I have found no touch screen to be as responsive as that on the Lumia, not even the iphone now. Visually the “tile” approach looks refreshing and the neat thing about it is that the tiles are “alive” – If I pin John Smith to my home screen I end up with a tile that says his name and a picture of him that has automatically been pulled from one of his accounts (FB, uinekd in etc). But the pictures are not static, they keep flipping slowly in a way  that seems as though the phone is winking at you! Also any change in info will reflect in his tile – a new text, a new email etc.

For someone with an uncluttered phone that is intended to be kept so, there is no comparison that the Lumia is the alternative to the iphone. If however you spend more money on apps than groceries, you probably should stick to the IPhone. The windows platform is nowhere near to competing with the appstore.

If there are flaws, those would be limited to:

-          Not being able to create a playlist on the phone

-          Creating your own ringtones is just as cumbersome as on the iphone (I haven’t figured this out yet)

-          The calendar is less sophisticated than Iphone’s so one can’t categorise events such as personal, work, etc, only as busy or available. Although the sync with my google calendar is seamless (while iPhone was not) so that makes life a lot easier.

Listen out for my interview with BBC Radio 4 You and Yours on this subject....Available on iPlayer (fwd ahead to 41 min) 

Nick Clegg is championing the social mobility drive so getting an internship is “open and transparent” to change the “who you know not what you know" culture.

It appears that 100 companies have signed up which include some of the largest supermarkets, banks, law firms and energy providers including Barclays, HSBC and Santander, and retailers Asda, Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Marks & Spencer and Morrisons.

 The companies have agreed to advertise work experience places in schools and over the internet, rather than just telling informal contacts.


They also agreed to work with schools to encourage pupils' ambitions and make internships “open and transparent” so poorer children were not put off.


The firms also agreed to use so that application candidates were not screened out because they went to the wrong school or come from a different ethnic group.


While this is all rather commendable I’m afraid Nick is behind the times. 11 years ago as an A Level student I managed to go online and apply to various internships or work experience days being offered by Investment Banks. I repeated the same process with one of the Big 5 accountancy firm and then again during my first year at a University to get a 3 week internship at an investment bank. Lastly I secured a summer internship in my penultimate year of University which led to a full time job offer.


I assure you that I neither knew the difference between a consultancy firm and an investment bank, nor did I know anyone who worked at either. The process to apply, the requirements and timeline were clearly posted online.


This is the reality of the financial sector broadly. The internship process is transparent as is the graduate recruitment process. There are also very strong diversity drives within this industry championed by the very senior most people. Banks like to make money. They want to hire smart people who they think can help them make more money;  They don’t care where a student went to school and even what degree they may have done. All it comes down to is aptitude and being able to demonstrate ability.


Unfortunately, private schools in the UK are very good at providing opportunity to their students that allows them to develop this work ethic and also be able to demonstrate it in an interview when asked “can you give me an example of when you assumed the role of a group leader?” Students have more support through careers advice, mock interview and training that leads to better interview performance.


By comparison, state comprehensives do not provide the same support. Hence students don’t perform as well in interviews. It is also a reality that they are perhaps less likely to apply to the financial sector because of less information.


What Nick Clegg needs to do is address this issue with state schools so more students are encouraged to apply. I can assure him that the financial industry has had an open door for the last decade or more, at least.


This observation about how accessible the financial sector is can largely be applied to larger firms. The 100 or so that have signed up have reached a level of institutionalisation where there is a clear process for everything aspect of functioning and recruitment is one of them. The big HR departments at these other large firms outside of finance also have invested in creating clear processes and then presenting them on their websites and offering opportunities for students to learn about them. For any profit seeking company the aim is to attract the best. The larger firms have the resources to advertise themselves and they have already done so. Nick’s drive for social mobility will not cause much improvement since he’s trying to change the wrong elements of the equation.

Besides motivating students across the state sector broadly and informing them of opportunities beyond what they see in their immediate surroundings, Nick needs to tackle opacity within small, medium sized businesses and less “institutionalised” sectors. Media, films, arts broadly, etc do not have a clear process of how they hire and who they hire.

As someone who tried to make a documentary, short films and a feature film I can confirm that unless you have the former head of BBC drama on your side, you ain’t getting a big wig casting agent to return your call. That’s where the “who you know” culture really has a stronghold. It’s those smaller businesses and informal sectors that don’t have huge HR departments or websites that explains step by step how to apply at different stages of your life.

So good for Nick for promoting a noble cause but if he really wants to make a difference then he needs to:

1.      Make the state school sector better at informing and preparing students so more apply for internships

2.      Get the informal sectors and SMEs to sign up for providing clearer guidance on their recruiting policy

2. a.       But don’t criticise them for firing incompetent interns!

3.      Provide government support to businesses that cannot afford to hire interns through grants etc

The result of these actions will be that the pool of students applying for internships will be braoder, beyond just the very motivated and private school educated, but also sectos of the economy beyond finance will become more accessible hence helping in some small way to redress the unbalanced UK economy.

The tragedy of Hester's pay at RBS

These are sad times when ill informed mass hysteria overrules reason and rationale.

 Crony capitalism has become the latest buzz word in a list that includes WMDs and moral hazard. And so let’s behead all bankers for they are the epitome of evil.

RBS is a basket case. It failed under the previous leadership of Sir Fred Goodwin and now it is state owned. For the state and UK tax payers to benefit from this situation, the bank has to recover. Stephen Hester was brought in to do this job. He is not the cause of this wreck. He is hopefully its saviour.

Tax payers own 82% of RBS market cap. If RBS stock price recovers, the state stands to benefit. Steven Hester’s job hence, is to increase the bank’s share price from its current depressed value.

 What better way to incentivise him than to pay him in the same stock that the taxpayer owns so his interests are perfectly aligned with ours. Isn’t this the precise proposal that has been touted as the solution to end short term profit seeking behaviour from bankers?

Well then why the media driven outcry over his bonus compensation? Yes, he got a bonus in a year that RBS lost money. But he hasn’t been paid out in cash from a depleting source. He’s been paid in the same currency that the government owns. If he wants to increase his private wealth he will work to maximise the stock price and in doing so, will benefit the tax payer.

 Over the public outcry he has now turned down this stock compensation. That means he has no upside from driving value for the tax payer any more. He was paid his base salary for the year so now why should he bother working harder? There is no personal upside for him. £1.2mn for a base salary might sound a lot to the common man but for the top bankers, as we hope Hester is, it’s relatively meagre. The reality is that globally finance pays inflated salaries. For one bank, or one country to singularly pressure its financial sector to cut wages, means that that bank or country will no longer be able to attract the best talent. If Hester is as good as we all hope he is, then he is now severely underpaid and not motivated to work in our benefit.

The problem we face today is that the media has received the backing of the public in beating up bankers and in brandishing the government as accepting hand outs from this sector. There is no longer a reasonable discussion about what is fair and what is outrageous. In the Hester case, the government cannot stand up for him because they will be labelled as succumbing to “crony capitalism” and Labour will jump at the chance to push this opinion.

I wish we could see more reasoned judgment from the media and perhaps the private sector itself but unfortunately the audience does not want to listen. There is a cry for blood and that is all that they seek.

Ed Balls and Labour - wise choice to keep silent

I follow Ed Balls on Twitter just to understand what it is that Labour is trying to say these days. I found something to help me out today in his article in the Daily Mirror titled “Why won't Tories take the blame for economic crisis?”

The allegations of the title alone are laughable. As a reminder the symptoms of the crises were first noticed in 2007 when Gordon Brown was in power. Let’s not forget the role Ed played in influencing policy while his best pal was running the nation.

But mudslinging aside, let’s looks at what Ed has written about here objectively.  I find a rather large number of ludicrous claims but more than that, for a senior statesman such as Ed Balls, I’m sorry to note the underhanded tactics he’s employing in his one sided attack on the coalition government. The tone of this article is not to educate the population and explain reasonable differences between the Government’s policies that have been enacted and what Labour would have done if it were in power. Instead, the article appears to want to sway the less informed reader with brash assertions about what Labour would have done better. That’s it. Nothing about what exactly Labour would have done instead. Here is a nugget to cherish: Of course, after the biggest global financial crisis in a century, fixing the economy and getting the deficit down was never going to be easy for any country or any government. It would have meant difficult decisions on tax, spending and pay if Labour had won the election.

But Labour it seems has a 5 point plan:

 That’s why Labour has set out a five-point plan for jobs – including a temporary cut in VAT to help our struggling high streets and give an average £450 boost for a couple with children, tax breaks for small firms taking on extra workers and a tax on bankers’ bonuses to fund 100,000 jobs for young people.

 If the country is already in deficit, and the current Government inherited this deficit from the previous (Labour) government, where do the Eds hope to raise cash to fund the 5 point plan from?

The much debated Welfare Reform Bill is aiming to reclaim benefits from the undeserving to the deserving. That’s the boost to families, to single parent families, disabled and those out of work who are looking for work. See my previous post for more on this.

Cutting VAT from 20% down to 17.5% might sound great but the lowest income group on which VAT has the biggest impact, will not really see the gain. As we know certain basic items are either already exempt from VAT or are charged a lower VAT rate (5%) instead of 20%. Hence cutting VAT as Ed suggests will have a very limited impact but it sure sounds good, don’t it?!

Food and drink for human consumption is, in general, zero-rated as are all supplies of unprocessed foodstuffs such as:

• raw meat and fish;
• vegetables and fruit;
• cereals, nuts and pulses; and
• culinary herbs

As a general principle, you can zero-rate a product sold for use as an ingredient in home cooking or baking. Other items that are either exempt from VAT or are charged the lower 5% of VAT include:

• Smoking cessation products - nicotine patches and gum
• Talking books and vision aids for blind people
• Equipment for blind or partially sighted people
• Mobility aids for the elderly
• Health services provided by registered doctors, dentists, opticians, pharmacists and other health professionals
• Care or medical treatment provided by a qualifying institution like a hospital, hospice or nursing home
• Education, vocational training, research and other connected services provided by an eligible body like a school, college or university
• Electricity, Gas etc for domestic use is charged the lower rate of 5%
• Children’s clothes are either exempt or charged at the lower rate of 5%
• Insurance is exempt

What will benefit from a cut in VAT is alcohol, cakes, frozen foods which are charged the full rate.

 So next, let’s consider the boost to small businesses that Ed would like to see employ more people. He also says that “it’s only exports to other countries that stopped our economy going into recession last year”.

 Now I’m confused – all these businesses hiring people, what will they do? I thought they might produce to export to economies where there is consumption demand but Ed implies that’s quite frivolous. Maybe he thinks they will sell to the domestic consumer alone which will pull us out of a deficit.  But tell me Ed, what’s wrong with exports driving the economy? Isn’t that what Germany’s much admired robust economy is based on? If not exports, what would you have liked the economy’s growth to have been based on? Oh wait, I know, it must be the financial services!

 “We’ve all heard the excuses. First they blamed the snow. Then they blamed the Royal Wedding. Now they’re blaming the eurozone”

 Here we lay the last, low punch. Bravo. But hold on, what if Labour does take over from this “mess”. Uh oh, it might be tough to deliver all this big talk so Ed includes a caveat:

But I have to be honest with Mirror readers. If the Tories plough on regardless, the next Labour government will inherit a really difficult situation. Of course we would be making different choices now. And we will make tough but different choices in the future. But after five years with Cameron and Osborne at the helm we don’t know how bad the economy will be.

That’s why Ed Milliband and I have said Labour cannot make any promises now – more than three years before the next election – to reverse spending cuts or tax rises.

We will have to see where we are in 2015 because, unlike Nick Clegg, we won’t make promises we can’t keep. We’ll have a big job to sort out the deficit, clear up Osborne’s economic mess and deliver social justice in tougher times

So there we have it. That’s why Labour and the Eds are not providing us with any reasonable plans on what they would have done in power. Silly, it’s because the Tories are making SUCH a mess that who knows what situation Labour will end up facing. Of course they shouldn’t say anything now. Much more sensible.

Thanks Eddie,  that clears up a lot.

Welfare Reform bill - Key policy proposals worth knowing about

Some of the key policy proposals are listed below. The full white paper can be accessed here

·         radically simplify the system to make work pay and combat worklessness and poverty

·         The Government is committed to ensuring that no-one loses as a direct result of these reforms. We have ensured that no-one will experience a reduction in the benefit they receive as a result of the introduction of Universal Credit

·         If the amount of Universal Credit a person is entitled to is less than the amount they were getting under the old system, an additional amount will be paid to ensure that they will be no worse off in cash terms.

·         people will no longer have to take a risk in moving from one system to another. For those in employment, Universal Credit will be calculated and delivered electronically, automatically adjusting credit payments according to monthly income reported through an upgraded version of the Pay As You Earn tax system (on which HM Revenue & Customs will be consulting shortly). The system will be simpler and will respond more quickly to changes in earnings so that people will not face the same complexities as they do now, particularly at the end of a tax year. As a result people will be much clearer about their entitlements and the beneficial effects of increasing their earnings by taking on more hours or doing some overtime.

·         People will have one system to contact rather than having to repeat information to three separate bodies, so strengthening the connection between financial and labour market support.

·         By allowing recipients to benefit financially from doing small amounts of irregular work Universal Credit will reduce the incentive for people to commit fraud by failing to declare work.

·         capping household benefit payments so that families do not receive more in welfare than median after-tax earnings for working households

·         Single taper would apply to earnings net of tax and National Insurance meaning that the highest Marginal Deduction Rate for low-earning workers would be reduced from around 96 per cent to 65 per cent for those earning below the personal tax threshold and to around 76 per cent for basic rate taxpayers.

·         The aim would be to allocate some of the current support to those working fewer than 16 hours, so that all types of work are rewarded.

·         it will now be financially rewarding for a lone parent to work 15 hours per week, or 17 hours per week (both of which would not have been financially rewarded under the existing system which only recognised 16 hours per week); and should more hours be available, the extra earnings will no longer face a Marginal Deduction Rate of 96 per cent. Under the current system a lone parent working 16 hours at the National Minimum Wage would only increase their take home pay by £5 a week if they increased their hours to 25 hours. Under Universal Credit the same lone parent would increase their take home pay by £17.

·         we are considering an option of allowing those pensioners who choose to extend their working lives to claim Universal Credit, rather than Pension Credit, so that they can take advantage of the tailored in-work arrangements. We would welcome views on this approach.

·         Financial support will remain unconditional for people who we do not expect to be able to work or prepare for work. None of the changes set out in this White Paper change that basic principle.

·         Disability Living Allowance - We intend to retain its role, outside the Universal Credit, as a non-means-tested cash benefit. It will continue to be paid to people in and out of work. We plan to consult shortly on our proposals, which will complement the support provided to disabled people by Universal Credit.

Welfare Reform Bill and why it is must be passed

The proposed reforms to the Welfare system are drastic. The intention is to address the dependency culture, weed out the frauds and hence create savings to assist the deserving. I think we all generally support this aim. The opposition amongst British opinion appears to be based on the negative impact these changes might have on some deserving recipients. The reality is that this division and opposition to the reforms are being based on ideology rather than facts.

 The Tories have a poor reputation when it comes to caring for society. Meryl Streep’s effort hasn’t cured the hangover some Britons still carry from the Thatcher era. But we need to put ideology aside and not turn this into a character assault against the Tories.

 The government’s drive for reform is coming from a necessity for change. A policy that affects so many people that form a heterogeneous group will unavoidably lead to small group that looses out. These will be the exceptional circumstances. We need to figure out a way of addressing their situation – that remains outstanding but it’s not being ignored.

 

We can argue about the policy details and how to improve it based on facts. What I am losing patience with is opposition that is based on painting the reforms to be the evil Tories’ scheme to squash helpless citizens and attributes them to mal intent.

 Yes, the policy could be improved – there is always room for improvement. So voice your opinion and contribute to the feedback that the government is seeking in its consultation period that runs to 30 April 2012. What we can do is try to highlight the exceptional cases so that policy may further be tweaked to address their case.  Click here.

 There will be individual cases who are thought to “lose out”. Their situation should not be used as a reason to block this reform but instead should be used to shape it.

 I do think where the government falls short is in communication. Especially when radical changes are being proposed, clarity of communication, explaining why and how is critical. The coalition has not done a good job of this. But again, let’s not hold that as an example of vindictive intentions.

 The case studies considered by the government show that their research has tried to be comprehensive. Where housing benefit may be reduced, other measures are boosted to support people who rightfully need it.

 There are a number of points about the reforms that I strongly believe are undeniably positive. They will make assessment, collection and receipt easier by not having to chase multiple forms and paperwork.

·         The Government also announced the inclusion of an additional bedroom within the size criteria used to assess Housing Benefit claims in the private rented sector where a disabled person or someone with a long term health condition has a proven need for overnight care and this is provided by a non-resident carer(s)

·         When Universal Credit starts and people do more work, they will lose about 65 pence of every pound they earn after tax. This means that we (government) will let people keep some of their benefit before they start to lose money from their benefit because of their wages. We call this the taper.

·         There are many others that I will post in a separate blog

The bottom line is that there are very many reasons for reform and that the proposals go a long way in addressing these. It is not a final policy and the government is keeping an open door to invite feedback during the consultation period. Let’s acknowledge that what is trying to be achieved here is very brave – while many previous governments have recognised the need for reform, the controversy surrounding such a sensitive issue has prevented action. Here is a government being brave, and risking its popularity to make necessary changes. Speak up to shape policy but blocking it will continue injustice.

 

Here are some facts on the current situation and the full length white paper can be read here

 

·         working-age welfare budget has increased by 45 per cent in real terms over the last decade – while the deserving population demographics have obviously not deteriorated by the same proportion, or even close

·         5 million people are on out-of-work benefits in the UK, and 1.4 million of them have been receiving out-of-work benefits for nine out of the last ten years. Not only that, but we now have one of the highest rates of workless households in Europe, with 1.9 million children living in homes where no-one has a job ­– Where possible, people have to be incentivised to work. The proposed single taper will benefit people who work any amount of time and will increase as more hours are worked. Under the old system only 16 hours per week was recognised, any time below or above this was not credited

·         contributions from the public resulted in over 1,600 responses via post, email and through the online consultation site ­– all the voices in opposition who wish to block the reforms should be instead contributing to this consultation.

·         In 2009, 2.3 million contacts to the Department for Work and Pensions were driven by people contacting the wrong agency and 1.4 million by people contacting the wrong office. 3 This complexity prevents people taking up benefits to which they are entitled. For example, in 2008/09 only between 38 and 51 per cent of those in work and entitled to Housing Benefit actually claimed. The Government spends a further £3.5 billion each year on administration.  -  A key focus of the reforms and Universal Credits is to simplify the whole system. One contact point, less paperwork, fewer government departments involved, eliminate duplication of resources, easier transition in and out of work and monitoring of benefits. Hopefully more of the deserving recipients will now apply and savings from wastage can be directed to the rightful beneficiaries.

·         Spending on working-age Housing Benefit has increased by more than 25 per cent to £14.2 billion -  once again, the population demographics have not shown the same proportional change to match the increased spend hence there is significant wastage.

A little bit about a lot of things...

So much seems to have happened since my last post and I haven't managed to keep up with fresh posts in time so here is a synopsis of my takes on a number of events past. Without dwelling too much here given some are quite stale but I couldn't resist throwing in my 2 cents or pence....

_________________________

　

　

House of Lords voted down the coalition proposal to monetarily penalise residents of council estates who have a spare rooms

The proposal makes perfect sense to me. I don't understand why this was voted down. The soppy arguments some appear to make such as in the Guardian are baseless "

...millions of social housing tenants will be forced to make an agonising decision: stay put and live in hardship, or move home and attempt to find a cheaper place to live, away from family, support networks and their children's school. With so few smaller homes available, many will not even have that choice....s it really a luxury to have a room for your foster child to sleep in, who for benefit purposes does not count as part of the household? Is it extravagant for your two teenage daughters to have their own rooms for privacy and study? Or a separated parent who has a room to share the care of their child – is that an unnecessary indulgence?"

Families that don't live on benefits suffer from the safe fate if they are not able to afford the payment on their homes so they move or downsize, etc. Why are tax payers supposed to pay for others to have a more cushy lifestyle when we ourselves can't afford one? I'm all for the "Manhattinisation of London" with more accountability at a local council level. Those who receive support ought to give back and expect to live at the same standard and subject to the same fluctuations as self-sufficient people.

And I can't understand why someone living on benefits is has foster children - raising kids is a huge responsibility that requires a significant financial commitment. While I respect their desire to give such children a new beginning, why is the taxpayer having to support them in this decision? So yes Guardian, the harsh reality is that it is "

really a luxury to have a room for your foster child to sleep in".

Cameron's veto

The Tory backbenchers would have exploded if a UK referendum came about and the coalition govt would have been ripped down the middle. If Cameron signed up to the policies at the EU summit, a UK referendum would have been raised. To avoid this, he played the veto. A good thing is doing so, is that it demonstrated that we will use it for things we care about and the City is something we do care about. Does it alienate us and reduce our ability to shape regulation going forward? not certain. The veto on tax reforms still holds and we can shape that if and when it comes about. We always had to work hard to negotiate and build support for our position - we will have to continue to do so now too.

Jeremy Clarkson's call for execution

A man paid to be comically obnoxious on tv was comically obnoxious on TV - why this boo-hoo about it? If he was the government's negotiator with unions and then he made such statements, fine, let's consider if it was appropriate or not. Also listening to his conversation in its entirety, the statement in question was clearly pulled out of context. If unions have the time and money to engage lawyers over this then hell, they are making too much money.

Sepp Blatter...

For once, I support him. Words are meaningless with no consequence...unless action follows. I don't care if someone (known or unknown to me) calls me a paki. Does it change my life in any way? No. Does it change my assessment of myself? No - and it shouldn't do so to anyone else either.

If I got passed on for a job or got stopped by the police because they thought I was a paki and assigned negative characteristics to that - then yes, I have a problem with it. But only if actions support the words should we bother, otherwise, move on and forget about it. Sticks and stones...

Heathslow...

It is plain stupid to deny that the UK needs more capacity to handle passengers at Heathrow. Frankfurt has more than London! Either build a new airport or expand the old one. Its quite simple. The only people fighting this are near sighted residents and their vote seeking MPs.

 

I wanna live like Common People...and claim £26k in benefits

The attraction of a music festival is perhaps bewildering. Sure, the atmosphere of watching a live band perform in front of a huge crowd is fantastic. But for this pleasure, we each pay a not insignificant amount of money spending a few days in unhygienic conditions amongst other germ carriers, sleeping in discomfort and having to queue 20mins for the privilege to pee in a contagious plastic box.

This is notwithstanding that I have succumbed to the allure.

Why?

Because there is a certain charm in living like common people. At some level, that image of a carefree and somehow happy existence, where every day brings a new adventure and doesn’t start with an alarm that shrieks at Silly A.M., is irresistible. The festival on a sunny day resembles a happy hippy camp free of routine and restrictions and responsibility. Can you pee standing up? Great. Pick a bush.

The allure of being poor and living a rock bottom existence with nothing to lose is a glass full of optimism. Nowhere but up. High risk, high reward. Nothing to lose so let’s risk it all. After all, only fools and horses work.

Compared to the hooky antics of Del Boy and Rodney, Britain today presents a rather sad story. The brothers lived a hand to mouth existence that survived only on their creativity to identify goods (sometimes faulty and/or illegal) that could be bought cheap and sold less cheap. They were poor but proud. They certainly gave nothing to the government - they evaded VAT and income tax. How much would they have contributed any way? But critically, they expected nothing either. Their self supported lifestyle was a boot strap model of entrepreneurship where failure was acceptable. They had courage and they were not lazy.

Last week, flicking channels mindlessly got me to stop at a Channel 4 documentary interviewing a 30-something girl who lived on benefits. They were helping her find a job to get her off benefits. Surely going to work every morning, contributing and having a purpose in life is good for any one’s self esteem?

No. This one didn’t want to do this, that or the other. Most things were boring so why should she? She wasn’t destitute. Our taxes were paying for her to stay at home. She eventually thought working in a care home might be nice and comfy. But she didn’t like cleaning up after old people and the kitchen was a bit dull. She went home instead.

Welfare is the second highest category of expenditure within the UK’s public spend at 17%. Health and Pensions top the table at 18% each. It’s no surprise that the government is trying to reform each of them. We can argue about the way they are going about it, poor communication, misguided changes, but it is undeniable that changes need to be made.

The minimum wage for an able bodied worker above the age of 21 years is £5.93. An 8 hour, 9-5 job, 5 days a week leads to an annual gross of £12,334.40.

The government today is proposing to limit universal benefits (housing, living, child, etc) to £26,000 p.a. equivalent to an hourly wage of £12.50

While the private sector average annual salary is £21,000.

And the public sector average is just under £26,000 (and notably, higher than the private sector).

Today the Opposition and various sympathisers are raising cry that the proposed Welfare bill with the cap at £26,000 and various other restrictions that limit unemployment benefits, etc, will make many people homeless through not being able to afford their current urban residence.

Reality is that, while there are many who deservedly receive benefits due to disability, age, etc., there is tremendous wastage due to the structural incentive created by the state to not work. Individuals are self selecting the optimal outcome for themselves by choosing to not work. The type of individuals falling into this category are such as described in this BBC report

Minimum wage has to more than double in this situation for individuals to be incentivised to work. Working for less than £12.50, is the sub optimal choice and these individuals are making the smart decision by choosing not to.

Now I don’t expect that the Welfare State is going to reach a stage any time soon, where this inefficiency is entirely corrected, but as the government is trying to do today, we can attempt to make some improvement. In the meantime what the rest of us dumb taxpayers can do is fight the hard fight to encourage common people to make the bad decision and get a job.

Obama needs a new speech writer...

Film buffs and fans of the deliciously cheesy but addictive Independence Day with Will Smith will remember that inspiring monologue by Bill Pullman, playing the American President, as he beckoned his audience to sign up to die in the fight against annihilation by the big blue aliens. It moved me.

Remember the scene? One starry night as the survivors from the last alien attack huddled together in a makeshift refugee camp, devastated, demoralized and with no hope for tomorrow, they had no will to live. President Bill, with his sleeves rolled up like the cute guy next door, climbs onto the wing of a dust crop aircraft whose pilot is surely destined for posthumous greatness. He grabs a loudspeaker. It crackles unexpectedly. He has their attention. He speaks. The nation is at war, the world is war, the human race is about to be made extinct. Could there be a worse fate than that?

He thought not and they agreed. They were inspired. They were scared but they stood their ground. They fought for their homes, their planet, for their children and for life. It was beautiful.

Evidently Barack agrees. Or, perhaps his speech writer does for every speech that I now hear him make he seems to be stuck in that perpetual tone of our-American-family-needs-to-huddle-to-fight-big-bad-old-men-in-pyjamas-for-life-or-death. Some one flicked that switch and it broke, call the handyman coz they can’t turn it off.

I couldn’t hear out all of Obama’s last speech on Afghanistan announcing the troops being pulled back because it had a bad effect on me. So I thought I would read it instead. It had a bad effect on my IPad. I’m now typing this on my mac.

Forget content or rationale for going into Afghanistan or leaving it. I’m not discussing that (for now) - lets just talk about the rhetoric. Not the what, but the how of his speech…

It begins with a reference to Pearl Harbour, addresses his “fellow Americans” who belong to the “American family” and closes with “May God bless our troops.  And may God bless the United States of America.”. Also worth quoting is “Like generations before, we must embrace America’s singular role in the course of human events.  But we must be as pragmatic as we are passionate; as strategic as we are resolute.  When threatened, we must respond with force –- but when that force can be targeted, we need not deploy large armies overseas.  When innocents are being slaughtered and global security endangered, we don’t have to choose between standing idly by or acting on our own.”

Perhaps I am out of touch with what the average American wants to hear but is amazes me to consider there are people who buy into this stuff. I admit, when Obama became president, I was happy. There was a part of me along with the Nobel Prize committee that saw hope. But I was stupid. The world is not a better place. I had unreasonable expectations of his presidency and that’s not his fault but speeches like this are.

I happened to be in NY when I caught the airing of that Oprah episode where she met up with the Obamas. The leader of free world and a nation at multiple wars with an economy going bust was hanging out on a couch for a TV chat show. Fine. It wasn’t just any chat show. It was the in-kind payment to Oprah in return for endorsing the Black man over the white woman. How can that use of his time be acceptable?

Despite its flaws and high share of buffoons, the UK government gives me so much more of a sense of reality. Perhaps it is to do with the size of the country which keeps the White House so separated from regular people. A few days demonstration outside Westminster is all it takes to highlight an issue in London. Write to your MP or MEP and they will write back. The UK government does hear from people and there is some sense of feedback.

But that’s not all. The US government as an institution is built above the people. Every element of it and how it represents itself exudes superiority with a tag that says “precious”. And who really is in control? Comparing it even to the defunct leadership of Brown there was even then that sense that the government works for the people (even if my taxes say otherwise).  

Those of us who have ever watched the West Wing, love it. I only saw part of the first series and I get the attraction. But that’s on TV, not reality. Perhaps his fellow Americans have watched so much reality TV that they can’t quite tell the difference any more…

Read the speech here

_________

Unfortunately the situation has not improved...but he sure looks good as he says it!

SOTU 2012:

Each time I look at that flag, I’m reminded that our destiny is stitched together like those 50 stars and those 13 stripes. No one built this country on their own. This nation is great because we built it together. This nation is great because we worked as a team. This nation is great because we get each other’s backs. And if we hold fast to that truth, in this moment of trial, there is no challenge too great; no mission too hard. As long as we are joined in common purpose, as long as we maintain our common resolve, our journey moves forward, and our future is hopeful, and the state of our Union will always be strong.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.