Who Are These People?

And let London do the same.

In my time I have left the employ of two large multinational companies after many years, and several others after much shorter periods. It will surprise nobody to learn that they all managed to survive without me, and those left behind never called to say that they missed my skills desperately. (It is possible, of course, that I wasn’t up to much in the first place.)

It was also very much a given that, in the majority of cases, a business does better for the introduction of new people with new ideas and, more importantly, fresh solutions to old problems. Very often this process is enabled or even nourished by the moving out of others, not necessarily to retirement but often to different roles. Whatever the instigation, a time comes when it is better for everyone else if you clear off and let those waiting in the wings rise to the occasion.

No matter how versatile and open-minded we think we may be, I am convinced that everyone suffers from a degree of ‘tunnel vision’ - we see every problem and every challenge in the spotlight of our own set of solutions. It can also be true that we see any problem to which we do not have an answer as not worth pursuing.

And so to Ken Livingstone.

There is something both sad and unseemly about a man scrabbling to hang on to a role which has, it seems to me, become a raison d’etre. There is also an uneasy sense of raving obsession in his single-minded quest. Like Gollum in Lord of the Rings, the ‘precious’ belongs to him – he must have it. He would fall into the flames happily if only he held it to his breast. (And destroy it in the process.)

Sadly, this unfortunate compulsion is not our only cause for concern. His preparedness to say anything, do anything, be anything, in pursuit of his ambition should in itself make him unsuitable. His shenanigans when the position of Mayor of London was announced were classic Livingstone. Standing independently, after saying he would not if the Labour Party’s decision went against him, was typical. And nothing has changed.

I strongly suspect that this will be his last chance to grab control of London and he knows it. Even allowing for his admittedly remarkable ability to make comeback after comeback, after this term, at the age of 70, the electorate will surely look to younger and more dynamic contenders. So, he is employing every trick, device and artifice in a frantic effort to make his last attempt at power a success.

Livingstone has been an albatross around the neck of London for far too many years. I have lived and worked in London, on and off, for all my working life. I have watched this man appease one half of the community at the expense of the other to further his own particular, and often peculiar, political objectives. I have seen him pit his office against the government of the day when such action was patently not in the best interests of the people. I have heard him make clear promises to the community before election and utterly disregard them afterwards. I have suffered the financial cost of his hair-brained schemes, fiscal waste and extravagance. I have been disgusted by his diplomatic abilities extending no farther than calling the U.S. Ambassador to Britain a “chiselling little crook”. The traditions of common courtesy alone would stop the most angry of us from spouting such bile.

So I plead with Londoners – let’s be done with the man. We don’t need him but we do need someone with new ideas and ability, and one not steeped in a life based around crazed political posturing and self interest.

Ken Livingstone is not the man for the job.

Tags: Ken, Livingstone, London, mayor

My despair is now almost total. “Lions led by donkeys” is a comment as apt today as it was in the First World War. Whether it be the weary law-abiding general public or the policeman on the front line, all are at the mercy of incapable but verbose management who have shown, yet again, that they lack any capacity to expect the unexpected and respond with initiative. Along with this we see the opposition, while ostensibly supporting the government, jostling for position to hurl myriad brickbats in furious attempts to avoid any mud sticking to them.

The greatest cities in the most remarkable country in the world are in the hands of time-servers and ideologues. What a great shame. What a great waste. What a great pity.

Tags: Law, Order

In this modern complex and confusing world, most of us have at some time found ourselves unwittingly enrolled in some scheme or other about which we have no memory. Somewhere, sometime, we ticked a box, filled in a survey or ordered an item on-line, and by so doing have agreed to be part of a club which commits us to expenditure or actions that we would never have intended had we been alert.

In the Internet age we tend to refer to these crafty seductions as ’scams’. All too often we then discover it is the very devil to untangle ourselves.

I get the feeling that I fell for my first, pre-internet, version of this back in ‘73. The government of the day asked politely if I cared to join a kind of European Petticoat Lane called the European Economic Community. (The Common Market to ordinary folk.) This would enable poor old Blighty to sell a few more baubles to the countries whose manic behaviour of only thirty or so years earlier had brought us to our economic knees. (And that is not xenophobia or arrogance but a simple truth.) Non-the-less the idea appeared sensible whatever its provenance. I ticked the box along with a representative proportion of the nation. Sadly, also like a good proportion of the nation, I failed to read between the lines, to wonder where it might all lead, to wonder if perhaps we were taking some kind of bait. And to wonder who might have laid it.

So, it seems to me, is our situation with the EU. With all the fuss and bother around the problems of, and with, Greece I suddenly thought – who brought us all to this point and why? Not, I am sure, a particularly novel thought, but sometimes the blatantly obvious takes some time to arrive in the mind. If you were among friends and expounded such a question eyes would be raised to heaven and looks of ‘I knew he wasn’t paying attention’ would be directed at you.

Were I to be asked about the value of the EU and where I thought it might be taking us all, I realise that my honest answer would have to be - ‘I haven’t a bloody clue, mate’. At this moment, with the debates sloshing about like water in a window cleaner’s pail, I feel as if I am on a tour coach; destination unknown, driver asleep, lost his way or dead at the wheel; surrounded by passengers who are watching each other hoping to see signs of confidence and security, with everyone’s eyes pleading “How on earth did I get here?” But the coach is now travelling at speed and nobody knows what to do. And it’s heading for a cliff…….

To add to the nightmarish quality of the situation, while we career headlong, clinging on to this lunatic charabanc without seatbelts, voices off keep calling out “You can’t get off, or even change seat, or the whole thing will overturn and it will be ALL YOUR FAULT!”

So where is the anti-virus software for a scam like this? I really wish I knew. And I really, really wish I hadn’t fallen for that crafty come-on all those years ago.

We can now be assured that AV is a very bad idea.

According to the Evening Standard (30/3/2011) :-

Ken Livingston urged Londoners today to seize a “historic chance” to change Britain’s voting system.

There we are then, proof positive, if proof were needed, that AV is an absolutely lunatic idea. Any scheme that has the enthusiastic support of Mr Livingston, almost by definition must be biased and defective.

Tags: AV, Livingston

Tags: AV

Not for the first time do we see New Labour minus its craftily designed and well tailored camouflage suit. Gordon Brown was meeting the electorate in Rochdale and, after talking amiably to a sixty-six year old widow and Labour supporter, who had a number of issues to raise, was heard to say:

“That was a disaster - they should never have put me with that woman. Whose idea was that? It’s just ridiculous…”

Followed by:

“She’s just a sort of bigoted woman that said she used to be Labour. I mean it’s just ridiculous. I don’t know why Sue brought her up towards me.”

We learn a great deal about people when their guard is lowered, they are caught off-guard or they are outside their safety zone. In 2001 John Prescott demonstrated his statesmanship by throwing a punch at an egg-throwing protester. While I consider hurling eggs a pretty infantile form of protest, I am always interested in the response of the victim. Mr Prescott showed us all that he was without dignity, hot-headed and totally unaware of his position. Tony Blair shrugged the incident off with a “That’s John”. What on earth does that actually mean? It said a great deal to me about both men.

On the BBC Politics Show of 14 March 2010 Gordon Brown faced a group of undecided voters to hear their views and answer their questions. He failed to engage, failed to empathise and looked throughout as if he would much rather have been watching X- factor. An NHS Psychology professional described a situation of overwork, stress and continual change of management. The expression on Gordon Brown’s face and his body language were a picture of weary resignation and tedium. He had heard it all before - why did he have to keep repeating himself to these wearisome grumblers? Don’t they know that the world is a better place because he says it is?

And now we have The Tale of the Widow of Rochdale. Heard here was a precis, a summary, of Labour both Old and New: all affability, a kindly expression and an apparent ear to concerns, but a disdainful and sneering dismissal when the back is turned.

Gordon Brown has always been someone who leaves me with a very uneasy feeling in my stomach. I have always been wary of people who don’t want anybody to know exactly what they are up to. They seem to wish to create the impression that what they are doing is far too important and involved to waste valuable time explaining it to lesser intellects. In my experience it is far more likely to be the case that they don’t want their weaknesses exposed to scrutiny and their decisions open to criticism. In the areas both of ability and listening to the electorate, it is becoming ever more obvious why Gordon Brown liked to keep his cards close to his chest.

“Of course I apologise if I’ve said anything that’s been offensive……” If? Only Gordon Brown could be in any doubt, but then, convinced of his own infallibility, he has never learned how to apologise with any grace.

Tags: Brown, Gordon, Rochdale

I don’t suppose that too many people actually watch Prime Minister’s Questions on BBC2 on Wednesdays. For  anyone who might be considering sampling this small episode of British democracy in action, I am sadly unable to recommend such a pathetic spectacle.

The first PMQs of the year on Wednesday January 6 showed that nothing has changed. Gordon Brown (I dislike referring to him as ‘Prime Minister’, he is a long way from meriting that title in my opinion) continues to patronise the populace and demean his office by playing games at the despatch box. (I don’t mean to imply that all the other members of the house are blameless, but he is the man to set an example – and he fails dismally and consistently to do so.)

The object of this paltry thirty minutes is for any MP to ask the Prime Minister a direct question on any subject for which he has ultimate responsibility, and receive a direct answer. It is apparent that Gordon Brown considers answering any question an admission of defeat – and Gordon Brown does not like to admit defeat.

Anyone who has seen the film The Matrix will be familiar with a special effects technique now known as Bullet Time. In these scenes every movement slows down. Bullets are fired and their path from weapon to target clearly seen. The intended victim, however, is equally capable of observing the missile and, in equally slow, almost balletic motion, sinuously twists to avoid it. This is the only skill that Gordon Brown has mastered.

PMQs should be renamed Gordon Brown’s Bullet Time. Questions are aimed accurately, but he twists, he turns, he writhes, he wriggles. He doesn’t feel them so he doesn’t have to answer them. And, in spite of this brief weekly session existing for the purpose of exacting answers, it invariably consists of Gordon Brown asking the questions.

Almost equally frustrating is listening to the political pundits afterwards debating whether   Gordon Brown put up a ‘good performance’. The usual measure of this is how many times he has embarrassed David Cameron and Nick Clegg – not how many times he has given a sound answer to a demanding question. Perhaps this is one situation where a public phone-in vote would be meaningful.

I watch these thirty minutes regularly with a feeling of deep foreboding. I know I am going to be disappointed and depressed and Gordon Brown never fails to meet my expectations.

See:-

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23779546-climate-change-sceptics-are-todays-flat-earth-brigade.do

I am a fool. I am lacking in the most basic intellectual tools and am blind to the blatantly obvious. Not only this, I have some unaccountable and stupid distrust of ’scientists’, ‘experts’ and, astonishingly, politicians. This must be so because Ed Miliband, in the Evening Standard on Friday December 4, says so.

The proof of my mental incapacity lies in the fact that I am unsure of the reality of drastic climate change and its causes. In keeping, then, with the established policy of You are either with us or against us, I, and any questions I have, are justifiably dismissed and ridiculed. Some suitably denigrating descriptions must also be applied. After all, if you really want to diminish the opinions of those who question your theories, give them silly names. I am thus:-

• A member of the flat-earth brigade
• A denier
• A gainsayer (Good one that, very medieval with all that brings to mind.)

Almost all my working life has been as a technician, analysing and repairing electro-mechanical and electronic equipment. About thirty-five years of it, in fact. I have
repaired audio equipment, telephone exchanges and computers. During this time I have learned many things. (Many of them about myself rather than machines. Incidentally, I was an ‘expert’ once.)

One of the main lessons is that it is very difficult to correctly address a problem if you don’t understand it. If the root cause of a problem is not known then you run the risk of wasting time, money and effort. Also, if you apply the wrong solution you are very likely to make matters worse. So analysis must be as thorough as possible. Theories are developed and tested. Hypotheses are expounded and examined. It’s fine to even guess at the cause of a failure providing it can be ultimately shown to be true. (There is also the risk that if you get it wrong, regaining the trust of your customers is very difficult. This is something that applies to everything we do. Our politicians have conveniently short memories, it seems.)

I also learnt that you do not ignore the views, opinions and - very important - observations of others who may not be technical. There can be much value in the ideas of those who do not share your particular discipline.

An open mind is essential until it is perfectly clear what is going on. Only then can you develop the right fix and be sure that the problem will not return. As we stand today I do not believe that we have all the facts about Climate Change. That’s basically it. I do read articles and watch programmes on TV. Without going into the various pros and cons I feel (not a technical word) that the climate is changing, but I am not at all sure that mankind is to blame. This attitude may make me wrong but it doesn’t make me a fool. Having an economist tell me that I should not be an upstart and question The Scientists makes me very irritable indeed. (Even Stephen Hawking reversed his views on the behaviour of black holes after a gap of thirty years.)

I believe that if I cannot get someone round to my point of view it is most likely because I am wrong or because I have failed to put my case cogently. It is not usually because the other person is an idiot. Ed Miliband might care to consider this possibility as he read philosophy at college. But perhaps reading and digesting were not taking place simultaneously. A little like a Labour Government that talks much and achieves little.

Tags: brigade, earth, Ed, flat, Miliband

See -

http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=20842

And I’ll wager it may disappoint but it wont surprise.

Here we see proof, if any more proof was needed, that our current administration will sacrifice any democratic or legal principle when it needs to address its endless incompetences - in this case financial. Also, with its usual arrogance and craft, it has attempted to sneak this change past the checks and balances of our system under cover of darkness.

It’s quite simple, really. Motorists are having their ‘offences’ overturned in court and their costs are then paid for by the government. (Always remember that when it comes to paying out money in this type of scenario ‘the government’ gets the cash from you and me.) These cases are costing the government money. This government is good at wasting money and now has a large hole to fill, but it is particularly unhappy when it comes to giving it back to the man in the street – or in the car. The number of men in cars successfully challenging tickets is about one in four, or 400,000 which adds up to a tidy sum in returned costs.

But never fear, the ingenuity of this government comes into its own at a time like this and a simple solution has been arrived at – or fabricated, if you want to look at it that way. It works like this – don’t pay. Problem solved. Next! Is it fair? Is it just? Is it right that an innocent motorist should have to bear the costs of successfully challenging his unfair penalty? What has that got do do with anything?

And is it just pure irony that the organisation planning to implement this system is the Ministry of Justice. Have you read Orwell’s 1984? Gordon Brown must consider it a reference manual rather than an allegory.

They won’t waste time finding out why 400,000 motoring ‘offences’ are wrong and save a great deal of time as well as money. Fixing a problem at source really is not the forte of the Labour Party, after all. No, just make the innocent pay for the errors (or worse) of the police and other authorities.

And there is an additional benefit, of course. If you risk a fine of £50 - £100 but legal costs of several times that if you pursue a challenge even if you win, it would make sense to just pay up. Win – win for the government then. More money and fewer challenges.

Another tyrannical and oppressive ‘big brother’ decision – what else would we expect?

Tags: costs, motorists, offences

Fascinating, isn’t it, how large organisations rig their terms and conditions completely to suit themselves, while protesting that it is the only way to do it or, more infuriating, it is for the customers’ benefit.

The UK energy companies, as is only too well known, are an even more extreme case. They have the entire population over a barrel and understand very well how to make good and selfish use of their position and power. It is the case that energy companies are permitted to charge customers higher prices without telling them for up to 65 days. Why? I have no idea.

The Energy Retailers Association supports the current system. Hardly surprising. Its chief executive, Garry Felgate, said: ‘The most relevant way for customers to hear about a price change, either up or down, is on their energy bill.’ What tosh this is. When Mr Felgate buys his wife her next Mercedes, I presume he would have no problem if the charge on his credit card statement was higher than the one he agreed with the salesman. ‘We didn’t think you would mind’ the salesman might say, ‘We knew you would find out eventually’. I guess Mr Felgate doesn’t have to budget and assumes lesser mortals shouldn’t crib at such minor inconveniences.

It really is about time organisations such as Ofgem began to stand up for the general public, the customer, the paymasters. I believe this is a good place to start.

Tags: energy, Felgate, Ofgem