Doctors are Revolting

Or to be more precise, striking.

The members of the British Medical Association are going to provide only emergency care on the 21st June 2012.

The dispute is about pensions.

79% of GPs, 84% of hospital consultants and 92% of junior doctors voted in favour.

Let see what they currently earn as basic salary’s :-

" 
In the most junior hospital trainee post (Foundation Year 1) the basic starting salary is £22,412. This increases in Foundation Year 2 to £27,798. For a doctor in specialist training the basic starting salary is £29,705. If the doctor is contracted to work more than 40 hours and/or to work outside 7am-7pm Monday to Friday, they will receive an additional supplement which will normally be between 20% and 50% of basic salary. This supplement is based on the extra hours worked above a 40 hour standard working week and the intensity of the work.

Doctors in the new speciality doctor grade earn between £36,807 and £70,126.Consultants can earn a basic salary of between £74,504 and £100,446 per year, dependent on length of service. Local and national clinical excellence awards may be awarded subject to meeting the necessary criteria.

Many general practitioners (GPs) are self employed and hold contracts, either on their own or as part of a partnership, with their local primary care trust (PCT). The profit of GPs varies according to the services they provide for their patients and the way they choose to provide these services.

Salaried GPs employed directly by PCTs earn between £53,781 to £81,158, dependent on, among other factors, length of service and experience. "

Source NHS website here.

As for their pensions.The average hospital consultant retiring now will enjoy a pension of £48,000 a year and a lump sum of over £140,000.  Among public sector pensions being paid out, doctors account for two thirds of the top 1% of pay outs.

The average male GP retiring at 60 receives £46,600 annually, dwarfing the public sector average of £1,400. Source here.

And what are the new proposals that are so terrible ?

Under the proposals, all NHS staff will be required to work until the state pension age (rising to 68 by 2046) until they can draw a full pension, 60 for those covered by 1995 scheme and 65 for the 2008 scheme. Contributions increased from 1 April 2012 by 2.4% for doctors earning over £48,983 and by 1.5% for those doctors earning £26,558 – £48,982.

So If I understand rightly Doctors are being asked to pay more and work longer. Dear Doctor please let me be the first to welcome you to the real world !

and can I point out that your paid too much in the first place ? have a read of this excellent article here.

And of course we have not even mentioned doctors and consultants earnings from private work, drug companies etc .

Doctors, your being greedy and the fact that you are willing to let people suffer for that greed makes me despise you.

The Doctors are revolting, in every sense of the word.

Let Them Eat Cake

So the government has done a U-Turn on the  " pasty tax " and VAT on static caravans.

Explained as " listening " to genuine concerns but viewed as cynics as a way of increasing coalition popularity.

To me it just seems incredibly weak behaviour.

The treasury needs every penny it can get. I don’t particularly agree that these additional taxes were the fairest or best way to obtain additional revenue so am not sad to see the changes.

What I am sad to see is no other changes to compensate for the lost revenue.

We either need the money or we don’t !

And while I'm ranting, how come this was not announced in parliament ?

As the markets watch and wait, do you think they view or leaders as being made of the right stuff ?

Final point, when I heard the news I could not help but think of Marie Antoinette


and the attributed quote " let them eat cake " in response to seeing starving peasants.

I don’t know why.

No Fault Dismissal

It may be a few days since the details of the Beecroft Report became available but it takes the writer a few days to digest and form an opinion.

I have of course had the benefit of commentary from the usual suspects. yet I have still find anybody whose analysis is the same as mine.

There are lots of recommendations in the report but the stand out one is " No Fault Dismissal "

Its worth reading the whole report but to summarise the most contentious point, an employer would be able to sack an employee giving no reason at any time. The employee would be entitled to compensation from the employer based on a statutory formula akin to redundancy.

The  logic for the recommendation is that sometimes employers get " stuck " with an employee that is no longer performing in their job and its an expensive and difficult process for the employer to do anything about it. Disproportionately expensive for small businesses.

The 2nd supporting arm of this recommendation is that if employers can dismiss at will they are more likely to hire and this will improve the economy. This is premise is supported by the Institute of Directors as reported here.

The government has now entered into a consultation phase and will then decide as to whether the recommendations have merit and should become law.

What a load of bollocks's.

There is a problem but not as described.

It is perfectly possible to dismiss an under performing employee. You have to follow best practice/contract terms. Generally,  you identify problems and required action to improve to the employee ( and if you have any sense, offer additional help/training ), then if no improvement a warning is issued, then a written warning, then a final warning and finally dismissal.

The process is stressful for everybody but does not have to be protracted.

The problem is what happens during or afterwards. The danger for the employer is that the employee will quit and claim constructive dismissal or afterwards claim unfair/wrongful dismissal. This will generally lead to a claim before an Employment Tribunal. This is what employers are scared of and employees know it.

Generally speaking ( and there are exceptions ) there are no awards for costs in the Employment Tribunal. So if a claim is made then regardless of its merits and outcome there is no risk to the loser of a financial penalty. This is fuelled by the availability of specialist employment lawyers who will act on ex employees behalf on a " No win , No fee " basis.

So in effect a dismissed employee has nothing to lose by bringing a claim in front of an Employment Tribunal. And that’s the problem.

It is cheaper for an employer to pay off a frivolous employment claim than employ a lawyer to defend it !

No fault dismissal is not required. What is required is the introduction of costs into the Employment Tribunal system. If employers are going to lose then then it is sensible for them to settle fairly and quickly. If an ex employee is going to lose then less claims will be made.

No ones statutory rights are affected.

As for the ideas that no fault dismissal will deregulate the labour market and deregulation will improve the number of people being employed, again, I say Bollocks !

A new employee does not get statutory employment rights until they have completed 2 years employment. Broadly speaking they can be dismissed at any point for no reason up to 2 years. If you are an employer and cannot workout whether an employee is any good within 2 years then frankly your in the wrong job !

However some of the recommendations in the report do make sense ie pensions and small business for instance.

My final comment re No fault Dismissal is that if your female or in a relationship, be scared ! I quote :-

" However the current list of reasons why an employee can claim unfair dismissal regardless of how long they have been employed (which are basically not related to the employee’s ability to do the job but rather a list of unacceptable reasons, largely related to union activity, why an employer might unreasonably wish to dismiss an otherwise well-performing employee) would remain in place. So too would the right of the employer to follow the current unfair dismissal process, which would often have a lower cost.

The concept of no fault dismissal specifically applies to ANYONE. Read the report !

So if your pregnant you can be dismissed. You protection against this is limited to the paragraph above. The report is totally silent on what the position of pregnant employees if a no fault dismissal law was available to employers.

Scary or what ? Remember the government is considering whether to implement this !

Twonk of the Day Is ?

Most definitely twonk of the day is Chloe Smith MP  ( @chloesmithmp ) who just happens to be Economic Secretary to the Treasury.

Appearing on Newsnight last night to comment on Christine Legardes IMF report on the state of the UK economy, our minister appeared along side Rachel Reeves ( @Rachelreevesmp ) the labour Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

You can see the episode on Iplayer here.

So why twonk of the day ?

Firstly there was a major gaff by Chloe in that she describes the government success of reducing the debt of the UK. Clearly this wrong as the debt is going up !
What the minister meant was reduction of the  deficit ! For an explanation of the difference see here.

However, under the pressure of live news a slip of the tongue can be excused and does not qualify for twonk status.

But it became clear during the interviews that our minister had made it a condition of appearing on the programme that she would not debate directly with her fellow MP.

Chloe, this wins you my Twonk of the day award !

Why the hell would you not debate ? Why Why Why ?

Your a government minister and you are not willing to allow another MP ask you a question in public ? Do you lack conviction ? Do you lack knowledge ?

You then compound your failure to act in an accountable way by stating in reply that you would be happy to debate Rachel Reeves any time ! Apparently not ! according to newsnight.

Minister, you may be brilliant at you job for all I know, but when you appear in an official capacity you have no rights whatsoever to lay down conditions re interview. To do so simply destroys the public’s trust in our politicians, government and your own personal integrity.  

Why should Prisoners be Denied the Vote ?

I think I might be alone on this one, but I think prisoners SHOULD be allowed to vote.

Deep down within me it just does not seem right that we have a society that locks people up and then stops them from any participation in the democratic method of choosing how our society is run. I'm sure that how despots and dictators behave i.e. lock up your opponents.

I'm being a bit extreme but what are risks to our society by allowing 80,000 extra people exercise their vote, Will society crumble ? or would allowing prisoners to engage in the vote perhaps add to the chances of a prisoner rehabilitating and become more aware of how a society operates.

Prison is for 2 things, safety of the public and punishment. Is loss of liberty not enough punishment ? Does removing the vote add anything to the severity of punishment ?

Removing the vote from prisoners simply distances them from the rest of us and does nothing to prevent any of us from being a victim of crime.

Care in the Community

This week is Dementia Awareness Week. Have a look at :-

and check out, the excellent Alzheimers Society website.

I was going to write about this subject anyway but today it has extra poignancy for me.

As I have commented before, my father has severe dementia and it is something we have lived with for at least 7 years. I am his registered carer but my father currently resides at a NHS run facility.

Trying to get appropriate care for my father since his diagnosis has been one of the most time consuming, stressful and at times futile things we have ever been through.

Some of the highlights include been my father being lost by Heartlands hospital and him wandering the streets of Birmingham for 48 hours whilst myself and the police searched for him. This actually happened twice ! One of his nursing homes throwing him out and just ringing an ambulance and telling me after the event. etc, etc. In and out of hospital because there was no where else for him to go etc etc.

My father has been for the last 2 years been cared for at an NHS facility which has provided a high standard of care and stability and its been a blessed relief.

Last week I was asked to come in and take part in a " care review ". I attended this weekend and now know it is highly likely he is going to be thrown out of his current facility.

I was presented with a deputy ward manager who went through a standard questionnaire designed to access my fathers care requirements based on his mental health. I understand that a physical health module will also be completed but I'm apparently not required for that one.

The questionnaire had approx 8 questions with multiple choice criteria and answers designed to access his condition and nursing requirements. Ranking each requirement from non to low, to moderate all the way to high. There is then a section for the accessor to write a narrative re each answer.

Through out this process which lasted approximately 20 minutes ( most of which was me asking questions ) it became apparent that what was happening was an assessment was beening done as to whether my fathers health requirements were severe enough for him to remain under his current care regime. At no point was this told to me upfront , I had to tease the information out by deliberate blunt questioning. Nor I am apparently going to be given a copy of the completed ( with assessors written comments ) questionnaire. I have to ask for this in writing and it may or may not be available to me. Finally I was asked to sign nothing and it was clear that my attendance was out of politeness and not a mandatory part of the process.

My questioning illicited  the fact that the remit of facility has changed ( no notice to me at any point ) and they are now only supposed to care for the most " challenging cases ". As my fathers condition has now worsened  to the extent that he can no longer walk, is incontinent, has no idea who or where he is, who I am and generally he is so feeble that he cannot cause a fuss ie he is  deteriorating to becoming a vegetable, this no longer presents a challenge for specially trained nurses, any type of nursing will be sufficient.

It is highly likely that my fathers care will be passed from the NHS to my local social services.

So once again my fathers care appears to be a in a state of flux and my stress levels are rising. The process will apparently take months and I have no faith whatsoever in my local authorities social services dept. Thankfully I have not had to deal with them for several years but last time they were pathetic in their efforts. I hope for my fathers sake and mine that they have improved.

Its time for a proper serious debate about the challenges of an ageing population
and dementia. How we as a society are going to care for, support and fund a coherent care package that provides us all with a quality of life and care that we would wish for ourselves. Everybody knows this so I say to our politicians, GET ON WITH IT !

Matthew Offord is Twonk of the Day

Matthew Offord ( @HendonMP ) wins the Twonk of the day award.

Mr Offord has a majority of 107, and apparently was once mistaken by Flashman  for being his waiter. 

 One of Mr Offord's constituents wrote asking for his support for same sex marriage and detailed below is the response he received.

I do not support same sex marriage and neither does Manuel Matthew Offord but our reasons are different. I do not support the institution of marriage at all.

Here his response :-

"Thank you for contacting me with your views regarding Same Sex Marriage.

My own position is that I will not be voting for legislation that extends marriage for same-sex couples. Having waited many years to get married I acknowledge the value the commitment brings. It is my strong personal, moral and religious belief that the institution of marriage is to provide the foundation of a stable relationship in which those two people of the opposite sex procreate and raise a child. That is physically not possible for same-sex couples so I don't see the  point of introducing a law to allow this. I strongly believe in same-sex couples having the right to a civil registration, in order that they receive the same benefits as opposite-sex couples but not marriage.

To many this might seem like a trivial matter, particularly since the introduction of Civil Partnerships in 2004 means that same sex couple already enjoy the same rights that married couple do. However the institution of marriage is woven into the fabric of our nation - it affects our courts, inheritance rights and even our schools. And it is the effect on our schools, children and teachers that is worrying so many. Close to 100,000 people have signed the one man, one woman equals marriage petition.

In regard to education, Section 403 of the Education Act 1996 places a legal requirement on schools to teach children about "the importance of marriage". If marriage is redefined, schools will have no choice but to give children equivalent teaching on same sex marriage, even those children of a very young age, including those at primary school. So what will happen to parents who because of religious, or philosophical beliefs take their children out of lessons? It is simply inconceivable in today's world where political correctness runs a mock in our institutions, that there would not be profound consequences for those who hold traditional views. Parents who object will be treated as bigots and outcasts, possibly excluded from being on the PTA, or from being a governor. Discriminated against and persecuted because they hold views that have been enshrined in our laws and have been the cornerstone of our society for two thousand years. And what of the teachers who object to teaching about same sex marriage. Will they face disciplinary action? How will it affect their careers? Will same sex marriage be covered under such subjects as citizenship forming part of the main curriculum taught to our children and tested through examination? These are just some of the questions that the Government has so far failed to answer.

I do not believe that same sex marriage would serve to enhance British society or its values.

Yours sincerely,

MATTHEW OFFORD MP
Member of Parliament for Hendon
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA

 Manuel Matthew Offord's arguments are so weak for the position he is adopting and that’s why he wins the Twonk award. Here's the letter again with my comments add in red .

"Thank you for contacting me with your views regarding Same Sex Marriage.

My own position is that I will not be voting for legislation that extends marriage for same-sex couples. ( Hurrah ! but only if your willing to ban all marriage ) Having waited many years to get married ( err why is that relevant ? ) I acknowledge the value the commitment brings ( to who ? ). It is my strong personal, moral and religious belief that the institution of marriage is to provide the foundation of a stable relationship in which those two people of the opposite sex procreate and raise a child ( Not sure everybody thinks like this ? I'm sure love is supposed to come in there somewhere in the 21st century, Are you also saying if you don’t want children there is no need to marry ? I'm pretty sure you can also procreate outside marriage, I’m also sure you can have a " stable " relationship without marrying.). That is physically not possible for same-sex couples so I don't see the  point of introducing a law to allow this ( a bit of a porkie here, adoption and sperm donors seem to pass you by. So if I follow your logic couples that cannot conceive should divorce ? and if your an adoptive parent you should be denied marriage ?) . I strongly believe in same-sex couples having the right to a civil registration, in order that they receive the same benefits as opposite-sex couples but not marriage ( not equality for all then ? ).

To many this might seem like a trivial matter ( condescending ), particularly since the introduction of Civil Partnerships in 2004 means that same sex couple already enjoy the same rights that married couple do. However the institution of marriage is woven into the fabric of our nation - it affects our courts, inheritance rights and even our schools. And it is the effect on our schools, children and teachers that is worrying so many ( really ? any evidence on this ?). Close to 100,000 people have signed the one man, one woman equals marriage petition. ( whilst factually correct surely this relates to you majority more than to the strength of argument )

In regard to education, Section 403 of the Education Act 1996 places a legal requirement on schools to teach children about "the importance of marriage" ( I didn’t know this, but I pose the question as to why marriage is so important ? ). If marriage is redefined, schools will have no choice but to give children equivalent teaching on same sex marriage, even those children of a very young age, including those at primary school ( Yes and your problem with that is ? ). So what will happen to parents who because of religious, or philosophical beliefs take their children out of lessons? ( they should be prosecuted as their views should not impede the education of their child ) It is simply inconceivable in today's world where political correctness runs a mock in our institutions, that there would not be profound consequences for those who hold traditional views ( thats the point isnt it ? Its called progress). Parents who object will be treated as bigots and outcasts, possibly excluded from being on the PTA, or from being a governor ( as they should be ! as such institutions exist for the education of all children not just theirs). Discriminated against and persecuted because they hold views that have been enshrined in our laws and have been the cornerstone of our society for two thousand years ( 2000 years ago a marriage was about property and indeed the female being property, slavery was also OK along with rape within marriage , check this out). And what of the teachers who object to teaching about same sex marriage. Will they face disciplinary action? How will it affect their careers? ( their teachers and a good teacher is agnostic to their personal beliefs, how else is religion taught ? can a devout catholic not teach Judaism ? Can a atheist not teach morals ? )  Will same sex marriage be covered under such subjects as citizenship forming part of the main curriculum taught to our children and tested through examination? ( Hope so ! )These are just some of the questions that the Government has so far failed to answer.

I do not believe that same sex marriage would serve to enhance British society or its values. ( So I must conclude that you believe that same sex marriage is at best neutral to our society, or indeed, at worst, detrimental ? Other than some bigoted people being upset you have offered no coherent reason not to support same sex marriage, which is a failure of accountability on your part )

Yours sincerely,

MATTHEW OFFORD MP
Member of Parliament for Hendon
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA

 

House of Lords Reform, the Radical Way

A favourite subject of mine.

The House of Lords is an arcane relic of yesterday. It needs to be destroyed in every way.

Whether now is the right time to do it is a moot point.

I do not deny that there are many hard working, intelligent and committed peers desperately trying to do their best for the country.

It is also arguable that the House of Lords is currently doing a better job than ever before.

Still, it sucks.

It sucks because it is stuffed full of the retired political elite, political donors and sidekicks of the powerful, bishops and judges. The House of Shame can claim no mandate from the British people for any of its actions. Nor can the British people hold any peers accountable for their actions.

So lets start again.

Do we even need a second chamber ?

You will hear lots of arguments about the House of Lords being a revising, reforming chamber stuffed full of expertise that the House of Commons doesn’t have. Another favourite is that MPs have such a massive workload that the real scrutiny of proposed legislation is carried out by peers. And of course party politics plays no part in these forensic activities ?

Imagine if there was no House Of Lords, would we be so worse off ?  A majority government would be able to pass/repeal any legislation it wants. Only Europe and the courts could pose any challenge. Now think about the behaviour of our MPs over the last few years in relation to expenses, the media, broken manifesto promises and downright lies and if you have any sense you will consider that the more checks and balances that exist on MPs the better.

So I support the idea of a second chamber as long as its primary function is to hold MPs to account and to represent the people.

The first reform should be to stop calling any second chamber the House of Lords. The name is already sexist and supports the class system. Peerages have no place in a democracy in the context of exercising power and making law.

To be honest I don’t care what a second chamber is called but for reasons that will become apparent, I would choose " Congress ".

Every political party had House of Lords reform as part of their manifesto at the last general election. We are yet to hear the firm proposals but the consensus seems to have a majority or wholly elected chamber.

I have heard many a politico refer to these ideas and then follow up with the phrase " Of course we have to ensure that the House of Commons remains the primary chamber ". Why ?

If both " chambers " are elected, why does the House of Commons have to be the primary and ( in power terms ) the supreme chamber ? Constitutional experts will argue forever on this point.

In fact by having an elected second chamber are we not just asking for trouble ? The mandate of both houses would be identical and are we not just going to get more of the same ? The existing political parties will have their machines select their candidates, run the campaigns and win the elections.

What would the position be if we currently had an elected second chamber now ? A coalition government in one chamber but would that be reflected in the second chamber or would one party have had a majority ? Your heading to political deadlock or fiasco on a massive scale.

So I’m against an elected second chamber.

There IS a radical, empowering alternative. We have a second chamber made up from ordinary citizens who are selected at random. Sounds mad doesn’t it !

For hundreds of years we have selected jury’s on exactly this basis. This cornerstone of the British legal system is built on the principal that your are tried by a selection of your peers. Your peers are intelligent and honest enough to provide a fair , balanced and necessary element to the judicial process. Why not the political process ?

Why cannot members of the second chamber be selected in exactly the same way ?

There are many potential benefits :-

1) The chamber would reflect the gender, social and ethnic make up of the country.

2) Every citizen would know that they have a chance to affect the future of this country which will improve social engagement and political interest.

3) Social mobility at its finest. I propose representatives are paid a salary allowing them to have to be able to afford to fulfil this public service.

4) The House of Commons would have a serious and permanent thorn in its side constantly reminding it of who it serves.

5) The second chamber cannot be stuffed full of the chosen few of the existing political parties

6) If a 5 year term of service was selected then substantially more and more people will get engaged in the " Congress " and through their social circles more and more voices will be heard.

7) If the list for selection was based on people volunteering their names, you are by its nature going to get motivated,  campaigning and committed representatives.

This idea is radical and most certainly wont be supported by the professional politician.  But it would be true representation and a massive leap forward from where we are.

Lets all Play Pretend

Merve the Swerve was in cheery mood this morning presenting the Bank's quarterly inflation report. I quote :-


"We have been through a big global financial crisis, the biggest downturn in world output since the 1930s, the biggest banking crisis in this country's history, the biggest fiscal deficit in our peacetime history, and our biggest trading partner, the euro area, is tearing itself apart without any obvious solution.
"The idea that we could reasonably hope to sail serenely through this with growth close to the long-run average and inflation at 2% strikes me as wholly unrealistic,"

His opinion may be highly accurate but don’t you just wish he would shut up ?

How he's still in a job is beyond me.

I could write at length about the current crisis and the complete and utter failure of the political leaders around the world to get a grip. But that would just add to the negative outlook mantra.

We are not going to improve anything if everyday we predict financial Armageddon.

In reality, the only way small and medium business survive is by pretending its not going on. Its mad I know but if you actually took on board the dire predictions you would give up now.

To improve the quality of all our lives we have to create an augmented reality of long lost normality ( whatever that was ).

How farcical is that ?

Has any MP done a Google+ Hangout ?

I'm trying to workout whether any of our MPs have done a Google+ hangout yet ?

For those that don’t know a Google+ hangout is a multi tenanted  video conference via the web where information and video can be shared, verbal and IM chat can happen etc. A good explanation of google hangouts is :-

Obama has done a hangout as have many other famous people including UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon which is here.

The Guardian is having a hangout on May the 17th with selected panellists on the UK economic situation. So the media is embracing these tools.


But I still cannot find any MP that has ever taken part. Ignorance does not seem to be a defence, because all the party leaders are on Google+ and seem keen to embrace this technology.


The technology offers everybody a chance to communicate and share in a fantastically open way and yet none of our elected MPs have chosen to use it ?


Are they scared ? and what of ?


If I'm wrong about the lack of MP's using hangouts, please let me know :-)

Dear Willie and Eric

Dear Willie and Eric,

Willie, I saw your reported interview in the Sunday Telegraph.

If I can paraphrase , you say " work harder " and " stop complaining ". These seem to be the 2 clear messages and they were echoed by you Eric on the Sunday Politics.

A coordinated message then from our government ministers.

Guys I hear you loud and clear.

If you would bear with me for a moment, I'd like to consider your " work harder " comments in a little more depth.

As I am employed in a small business I have to say that the idea of working harder had passed us by.  We are so grateful for your advice because the idea had not occurred to any of us !

I don't think we are stupid, its just that the 60 + hours a week we already work does tend to leave limited time for philosophical considerations of the wider economy. Did I mention that the hours over the standard 40 are unpaid but worked happily to ensure that the company survives and we all have a job. 

So we could work harder certainly but how best to do it ?

If we follow your example Willie it seems that when you do extra hours you do it for yourself as opposed to the country or your constituents. I'm  of course referring to your 2 books that you have written whilst being an MP, and also the income you have earned on the " " rent a gob " speaking circuit.

But of course if the extra work we are being asked to do is for ourselves not our primary employers , I am unclear as to how this helps the economy ?  Added productivity perhaps but certainly no reduction in unemployment.

Eric suggested that we needed more sales and exports. Sorry cannot help with the exports ( service company ) but more sales ? You'd think we might have come up with that one ourselves. Of course, to sell more there has to be a demand.

The more I think about it the more I reckon demand is  the problem. The economy is in recession ( 2nd time under your stewardship ) ie shrinking. Now I haven’t got the politics , philosophy and economics degree you have, but if the economy is shrinking doesn’t that indicate demand is down ?

But I remain convinced I must work harder ! It might help if I worked smarter too but what to do ?

As a former management consultant Willie, surely you have some ideas ? I'd be so grateful if you could share? Eric as a former consultant in an Employment practice you must know easy ways to work harder ?

Now i don’t want to appear mercenary guys ? but if I do this extra work, is there anything extra in it for me ? You see my living standards are falling because I haven’t had a pay rise for ages and ages and you know with inflation, etc I could do with a bit extra.

I know I'm a bit simple ( hence your sage advice ) but is it right that I do this extra for nothing ? As Leaders, it comes naturally to you to inspire ! I'd certainly  be inspired if you published a list of all the activities you do without pay that relate to your Job.

Can I mention the " stop complaining " comment advice. This is brilliant ! So much energy is wasted by complaining about things you cannot change.Like the past for instance, ie the public finances you inherited or Europe or the latest election results. Onwards and upwards I say !

Just for clarity though ? If I disagree with you and air that view, am I complaining ? Or am I debating or in a positive way offering an alternative solution or point of view. If everything I say is a " complaint " and I must stop " complaining " then why bother with political discourse or even parliament ?

Willie you've confused me again. But I promise I will continue to do my best and learn. I will strive to be better ! That's of course what you want. Call me Dave says so himself that you should be looking looking after ( and representing )  the " hard working strivers " . That's me :-).

Just as a quick aside, if your unemployed or unable to work through illness surely you don’t quite fit that definition ? Of course we all recognise that if outside " the strivers " definition we shouldn’t be looking for representation from the Conservatives. Message received loud and clear on that one.

But I come back  to how to work harder ??? You see it troubles me. Don’t worry though I see a way forward. I'm going to have less holiday this year. Down from the 6 days I had last year. And even better I'm going to keep all my leisure time ( and money ) in the UK by not gallivanting abroad. If all the MPS took all their holidays in the UK this year do you not think it would be a good idea ? More money and demand in the UK economy ?


Finally, I hope you don’t think I'm being presumptuous by referring to you  as Willie and Eric. No offence is intended but I feel that we must be an intimate level. I don’t know how this arose because I have never met either of you and I certainly don’t belong to the exclusive clubs you do willie like the Carlton and Bucks clubs. I think our relationship is based on the fact that you seem to know me so well that you know I need to work harder.

Best regards,

A born again striver

Twitter v Journalism v Leveson

Printed newspapers are dead. But is journalism ?

I'm a news junkie, always have been. I grew up in a house that always had 3 or more newspapers every day for me to read. 

Yet today I buy none and don’t really read the freebies that come through the letterbox.

I think that its the fact that I'm a news junkie that prevents me from reading a newspaper.

The problem with newspapers ( unless its a scoop ) is everything you read is old news or foresight into future events. With 24 hours available on the radio, TV and web there are almost no surprises when a newspaper reaches the news-stand, in reality the " news " will have already reached those that are interested, and even possibly the newspaper may be many hours behind the story.


Many newspapers and journalists are promoting the stories on the internet before the paper is even running off the presses. I suppose to promote circulation, but in reality you get the info without the purchase.

I have long believed that many newspapers have recognised that they are no longer able to compete on current affairs reporting. This has been happening for many years and its why there has been a shift towards gossip, sleaze and celeb culture. Newspapers recognised that they had to have unique content and started to fill their pages with this nonsense because its cheaper than real journalism. Their problem is that with the social media explosion even " gutter " reporting is under attack as information is shared so quickly.

What can newspapers bring that the web etc cannot ? I struggle to think of anything. Many serious journalists will point to in depth articles and investigative reporting. These are worthy activities that regularly inform and astonish. I am not rubbishing these activities but questioning their distribution and commercial model.

Serious journalism has to be funded and I assume it does not come cheap. Until recently it was the deep pockets of the national newspapers that funded their journalists to undertake these activities. But it is my argument that the model is broken.

Firstly,  the distribution model will be fully electronic, that’s clear for anybody to see.

And because the distribution medium is electronic so is the advertising. And this is the killer point. Advertising on the web works best when it is targeting the visitor AND on a pay for click basis ie if no one clicks on the ads around your story you will earn nothing from it. This minimises a sizeable revenue stream for the " publisher " from traditional newspaper advertising.

So how else can a traditional newspaper earn revenue in a electronic world. Subscriptions and  " paywalls " are being tried but are far from proven as a ever going to work. We like free stuff.

If you compare the newspaper industry to the music industry you can see the way this is going. The might of the record labels has gone. Most musicians earn there money from live work, merchandising etc , the recorded song ( for that read the written word ) no longer produces the income it used to. A significant number of musicians go direct to the web and fans and bypass the traditional business models altogether.

My argument is that a daily/weekly aggregator of news via the written word has no sustainable business model any more.

So what alternatives exist for written journalistic endeavours however worthy ?
I honestly don’t know would be my answer. The media world is remoulding itself and we are only at the beginning of this road. Its possible to contemplate individual ( or small groups ) of journalists developing a following like a musician which they may be able to cultivate to provide an income stream through TV appearances, lecture tours, blogs book deals etc. With the expansion  of regional TV and the ability to have net based TV/radio stations there certainly will be a demand for the celebrity journalist.

For serious investigative journalism there are opportunity’s as well. Instead of distilling the story to a limited amount of words, the opportunity to expand the story background and significance of your report awaits you in the ebook world along with the joys of self publishing.

How to maximise these potential earnings is going to be a brave new world for many a journalist. Let me suggest engagement is your new horizon. In an electronic world your audience not only reads but responds and indeed, expects you to engage with them and this is done through social media.

Which brings me on to Twitter. Twitter is the best news source in the world ( its is also contains a lot of garbage I know ) As well as being instant which gives me my fix, it allows debate, conversation and rebuttal. But it it goes further than that because it adds a wonderful human dimension.

Whilst on twitter this past week I stumbled upon two events ( timelines ) that were so real that they affected me more than all the news stories I have seen elsewhere.

The first was an apparent live tweeting of somebody committing suicide via overdosing on multiple drugs. I am not going to name them but I did not ignore them and nor did many others. people reached out to try and help and showed genuine concern and warmth. It appears the individual concerned survived and I wish them well.

The second scenario was similar. this time I will name the star, Jim Smallman. The following reweet appear in my timeline :-

" Dude next to me in Starbucks just read a text and started crying. Nobody seems to care. I'm going to ask if he's ok. "
 
And he did. The crying guy had just been dumped and Mr Smallman took him for a pint and arranged for friends to look after him. A real act of human kindness. Again people on twitter seemed genuinely concerned. I am now following Mr Smallman which may haunt me as he like football ( Satans game )

Neither of these twitter events would ever appear in a national newspaper or behind a paywall. and this is what makes social media unique and along with the fore mention reasons  a much more powerful  " thing " than newspapers.

My final point is that the Leveson inquiry has a far reaching remit that includes the conduct of the press , politicians and the police. But what its really about is power.  How people and businesses get it and use it. I don’t know what " findings " and " recommendations " will be made. But I have a strong suspicion that as far as journalism ( as opposed to publishers ) is concerned it will make no difference at all. Just because the press is dying, journalism wont and that’s a good thing !

Wheres the Jobs ??

So the Queens speech is published.

Frankly I despair.

Economic improvement should be the politicians mantra but is the economy truly at the heart of the the new legislative agenda ? Is it bollocks !

The phrase " busy fools " could have been authored for today. There may be elements of worthy legislation coming our way such as breaking up the banks and pension reform but TV in courts ?

Let me spell it out " WHERE’S THE JOBS ? "

I am not in denial of the deficit. Bringing the deficit down must happen but at this moment the government is borrowing at unsustainable levels.

They fail to see the big picture or even discuss it. The government needs to move this country to an economic model where the private sector taxes meet the public sector costs. Its that simple.

A bigger private sector produces more tax revenue. So grow the private sector !

Who is the biggest employer in the private sector ? Small and medium businesses and when this demographic looks at today’s agenda they will get the clear and consistent message from this government that they don’t matter. Actually that’s wrong because this government is going to make it even harder to employee someone by adding further financial burdens on businesses re paternity rights.

Secretly, I imagine a lot of MPs are looking at each other and mouthing the words " what the fuck ? "

What is going to happen to the school, college and university leavers this summer ?

So if you are a labour party supporter I strongly advise you adopt the following strategy :-

As each bill comes up for debate don’t get side tracked in political point scoring. Shift through the legislation as fast as you can to leave more time for the important debates and to concentrate on the core agenda of economy and Jobs.

Every time the government crows " You support us " " You support us " simply say you are doing what’s right and shifting through meaningless trivial legislation so that real issues will be debated. At every opportunity bring the debate back to the economy. The public will soon get the message about who's willing to deal with the real issues and whose burying their head in rubbish.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill - support it and move on

Banking Reform Bill - support it and move on

Groceries Adjudicator Bill - support it and move on

Small Donations Bill - support it and move on

Energy Bill - support it and move on

Draft Water Bill - support it and move on

Pensions Bill - Debate this one as the poorest in society are at risk

Public Service Pensions Bill - debate this one, going to be tricky for labour. At some point we are all going to have to recognise that current public sector pensions are unaffordable.

Draft Local Audit Bill - support it and move on

Children and Families Bill - debate this one and oppose the paternity changes, whilst possibly desirable they are unaffordable to small businesses.

Draft Care and Support Bill - debate this one as its fundamental to the quality of life for millions.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill - support it and move on

House of Lords Reform Bill - Oppose this and follow an alternative approach ( more to follow )

Crime and Courts Bill - oppose this. Justice is not entertainment and we are not America. Nor do we need to add to the number of law enforcement agencies.

Defamation Bill - support it and move on

Justice and Security Bill -support it and move on

Draft Communications Bill - Oppose this and ask them how they propose to do it. The tech community is unanimous that it cannot be done as they describe without significant monitoring that far exceeds the proposed mandate.

European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Bill - oppose this, its time to have a debate and referendum on our relationship with EU.

Croatia Accession Bill - support it and move on

If you are Tory MP then its time to have a real hard look at what true Conservative values should be in a modern world. The free market, bang them up and its all the immigrants fault rhetoric really really is not going to win you voters in the modern world. The policies of the 50's 60's and 70's are not appropriate now. You are the "nasty party" that’s why your not in government. Unless you put the poor ahead of the rich in a clear and repeated way you are heading to an election defeat of epic proportions.

The only way forward for the Lib Dems is to change their leader. If this Queens speech is the best you can do, then you are a shower.

Virgin London Marathon Organisers are Twonks !

Today the Virgin London Marathon Organisers win my Twonks of the day award.

Why ?

Today, Claire Lomas has finished this years London Marathon. Claire is paralysed from the waist down and has completed the course using a " bionic " suit. Claire averaged 2 miles a day and has raised over £80,000 for spinal research.

I applaud everybody who raises money for charity and the basis of the popularity of the London Marathon is built on the foundation of charity fund-raising.

What I did not know is that if a competitor does not finish the event on the same day as its being held the get no official recognition as completing nor do they get a medal.

Its reasonable to understand that the infrastructure to monitor a competitors progress is dismantled pretty soon after the race and so an unclassified result can be explained.

But no medal ? Thats just mean ! 

Give Claire a Medal !

Virgin has nothing about on Claire on their website , nor does the marathon website. Shame on you.


Richard Branson is on twitter so I'm going to send him a link to this and see if he does anything ! #wheresclairesmedal

The Alternative Queens Speech

The Conservative Home website is today publishing an alternative Queens Speech ahead of the real thing on Wednesday.

Purporting to offer an alternative based on core Conservative values ( as opposed to Government ) the ethos seems to be that if adopted then the Tory party would be more popular with voters. Far from sure on that one.

An alternative Queens speech is a great idea and I would encourage all political parties to publish theirs.

Heres mine :-

1. Do whats necessary to start building houses, lots of houses and geographically spread around the country.
2. Come back from Afghanistan, fast !
3. Recognise that the single biggest employers in the private sector are small businesses. Do something to help them.
4. Make the state owned banks lend money without asking for your first borns birthright as security.
5. Stop big business moving offshore their profits to avoid UK tax.
6. Have a referendum on Europe, then move on.
7. Tax the rich.
8. Start a cross party campaign now to support the union.
9. Cut VAT on Food, Fuel and Utilities.
10. Support science and tech business with medium and long term investment and incentive schemes.
11. Introduce the Tobin ( Robin Hood ) tax.
12. Stop the civil list.
13. Build a 3rd Runway but at Birmingham airport.
14. Get on with HS2 as fast as possible.
15. Above all, create jobs that pay a living wage.

Not too much to ask ?

Mid Term Blues La La La

Music is perhaps the only art form that can touch my soul .There are artists who always seem to articulate a message that resonates. You can place me firmly in the camp of I care what you sing , not how you sing it. Blues music arose out of oppression and a failure of representation.

Flashman and Calamity have fessed up to being sorry but their message was directly aimed at their activists. No message to the ordinary ?

The professional ( well they earn their living professing, if that makes them professional is another debate) pundits have exercised their intellectual might to draw conclusions as to the political state of the country, their predictions for the future activity of the elected and of course the fate of the country in 2015. Did you hear anything that surprised you ? Did you hear insight ?

Are local elections so worthless and meaningless to the political powers that the results are can be dismissed in a 3 minute interview containing nothing more that the usual, lazy platitudes ?

If you are an elected representative and have dismissed these election results as mid term blues then you are a patronising, ignorant fuckwit and you should resign immediately.

If your unemployed, in poverty, ill or just surviveing you belong to the voter demographic that is growing the fastest, the desperate. What message did you hear coming to you today ?

It astonishes the writer that the analysis does not extend to what message the electorate is sending ?

Your not worth voting for is the resounding message sent to our politicians. Not a message coming across on the news ?

The Tories say they need to communicate better, the Lib Dems that their support has not eroded further and labour we need to continue our good work winning your trust.

If your in opposition then our election system encourages you to sit on the sidelines snipping. Thats not your job , your job is to hold the government to account. Concentrate on this , be honest and offer alternatives.

If your a Lib Dem, wake up the fact that you have lost the trust of people who have voted for you previously. Stop telling us that your in a difficult position, who cares ? The only way back is to win peoples trust, try that.

And if you are Tory when are you going to start listening to ordinary people instead of pandering to an aging demographic that ultimately will destroy you. As a pro European I would welcome a referendum on Europe , have it and then shut up about it. Gay marriage ? FFS who cares ? Let people do what they want. Online porn ? Adults like porn shock horror, ( cannot admit that can you ) protect kids fine but start with page 3 ? Laws to let prayers at council meetings ? Is this the best you can really do ? Oiky appeared on the Andrew Marr show this morning, despite Marr's flaccid questioning our chancellor was more humble than normal. The message was its the economy stupid. I hope he means it.

Mid term blues are real. they are misery, apathy and despair. Mid term blues are not a voting pattern.

I Vote therefore I Whinge

Last post on my own voyage of voting in the local elections.

In my own ward the incumbent Conservative has retained his seat with a turnout of 33.8%. I am not surprised.

As all the candidates failed miserably to engage with the residents of the ward, two thirds of my neighbours could not be arsed to vote. Frankly, I despair with all of them.

The Council remains under Conservative control but I am encouraged that a new independent candidate has been elected. Clearly if you mount a campaign you can make a difference.

My conclusion is that I am perfectly entitled to give my councilor and the council as much grief or praise as I see fit. I voted.

Lets all be Core

The Leveson Inquiry has granted “ core participant “ status to various government ministers.

This status allows core participants an number of additional rights including access to evidence that has not yet been made public.

The good news is that we can all apply.

“ The Inquiry’s ‘core participants’ (CPs) are designated by the Chairman. An individual or an organisation can become a CP if they seem to the Chairman to meet one or more of the following criteria:

• the person played, or may have played, a direct and significant role in relation to the matters to which the inquiry relates;
• the person has a significant interest in an important aspect of those matters to which the inquiry relates; or
• the person may be subject to explicit or significant criticism during the inquiry proceedings or in its report. “
  

I've underlined the relevant section.

We all have a significant interest in the relationship between the press, police and our politicians.

Based on this, it would seem churlish to say government ministers should be excluded.

However, I believe that is it sadly true that the motivation of these ministers is to prepare a damage limitation strategy for the jaw dropping revelations to come.

Anybody know a QC willing to do a freebie ? I can think of a few questions.

2012 Local Election Results

My local council is yet to declare its results so I cannot vent yet.

Although not complete, there has yet to be a seismic conclusion to be drawn from the declared results.

The results seem to be following the predicted pattern.

And the predicted party lines and reasoning have started to be trotted out.

Some interesting questions appear to be surfacing ?

The turnout is low, ( far too low ! ) and none of the usual figures seems to give a toss ! Tradition dictates that when the electorate is angry a higher turnout follows. So we are not angry ? Not a conclusion I would rush towards. A failure of politicians to convince the us that their worth our vote ?

The mayoral project seems to be a dead duck for large parts of the country. To be honest this subject has passed me by. With no possibility of being subjected to the possible tyranny of a city champion I an not affected either way. My instinct is that mayors are bad, too much power in the hands of one person. And if majors were widely operated across the country surely what will really happen is a adversarial competition or behind closed doors stitch up ?

The number of councils under no overall control ( NOC ) appears to have reduced. An association with the loss of more Lib Dem councilors possibility but a shame. NOC's should be the most productive model for local politics.

Generally, the labour gains will be good. I believe in checks and balances and the idea that slavish implementation of central government policies at a local level is a very bad thing.

Is it sad that I keep checking my local authority website for results ?

I'm Voting in the Wrong Election

So later today I will exercise my vote. I try and make it the only exercise I do.

I was not doorstepped last night, no more leaflets have arrived at the house and I am none the wiser as to who I will vote for.

My current thinking is confused.

I really wanted to vote on local issues however by doing this I should dismiss the Labour and Lib Dem candidates as I don’t know what they stand for.

However, I do not support the policies of the Conservatives and Green's with any conviction.

I believe that my local council would be best served without a dominant party ( currently 3/4 Conservatives ) and that a broad representation of political views would better serve my community.

I am entertaining a warped standpoint that if a was to vote for the Lib Dems or Labour then there is more chance of them making a better effort next time. It may be possible to stretch this logic so that if the Conservative vote is significantly down then there is a chance of the Government altering course. Clutching at straws probably.

I live in hope that of being engaged at the polling station.

I am of course looking forward to the results especially the national picture.

My predictions :-

Tory vote down big time.

Lib Dems do better than predicted.

Labour do well.

There will be a clear concentration of Tory votes in the south/ south east of the country and the further north you go the less the Tory vote. this will be the most significant aspect of this election in the medium term.

Every party leader will claim to have done well.

Boris will be out but oh so close.

That the French election outcome is in fact much more important to us all in the UK.

Lets see ! Please vote.

To Vote or not to Vote that is the Question

A facile title because I am still going to vote but as yet I still have not made my choice.

I have not made my choice because i am still trawling the online world to find any compelling information to guide me.

I have still found absolutely no information on the Labour or Lib Dem policies.

Google gives me nothing and as a last resort I visited both the local rags websites.
Both offered me search engines to search for information and both sites came up blank as to any information about the local election.

Frustrated and pissed off is my natural disposition but this is really serious.

What if this was your first ever vote ?

What if you worked away and wanted to use a postal vote ?

How can you make an informed choice ?

I am living in hope that somebody may canvass my vote on the doorstep tonight or outside the polling station tomorrow.

I am so envious of London voters and the vast amounts of coverage they can access.

Please vote tomorrow.

Louise Mensch MP

I digress from my endeavours to cast my vote tomorrow to comment on Louise Mensch (@louisemensch ) who seems to be the centre of strong opinion today.

Elected in 2010 as Conservative MP for Corby and East Northamptonshire click here for a history and she has a facebook page.

I like the fact that Ms Mensch engages via online media, and its clear from her twitter profile that debate with Joe Bloggs is not beneath her. Ms Mench even part owns a web company. I like the fact that a career before politics is apparent. I like the fact that when Murdoch was flanned you had a instinctively human reaction of concern ( as opposed to the other MPs anyway ).

i don’t like this MPs voting record because our politics are not the same ( almost diversely opposing ) and I don’t like the fact that there seems little rebellion against the party line.

What you cannot do is ignore Ms Mensch and this is how it should be. She wont let you !

Mainstream journalists seems enthralled by the fact that the MP for Corby is a women with an opinion and this fact alone is worthy of reporting which is a sad reflection on them and the state of reporting. You wont find this blog referencing an individual because of their sex, creed or religion. Franky, my dear ( :-) ) I don’t give a damn !

Today’s fuss is about  the Tory MPs failure to fully endorse the select committees full findings on the hacking saga because of the line about Rupert Murdochs fitness to be in charge of a company. It was Ms Mensch who did the media rounds defending their position.

To be blunt it was the usual party battle line bollocks. I understand why the line was inserted into the report and I also understand why, without debate, it is valid to object to it.

What our beloved MP's seem to have failed to grasp is that I/we don’t care what News international did in the general sense ( that’s for courts police etc ) I do care what MPs do and there seems to be very little appetite for MPs to identify their own behaviour as a result of the Murdoch empire. 

Back to Ms Mensch ( I need a nickname ! ) you've got the profile, appear to have the engagement, so my question is what are you going to do with it ?

I'd like to see you promoted at the next cabinet reshuffle. It time to see you face greater examination and its time to see your policies. Comment is fine but its time to step up. 

If I was in a fight, I would want Louise Mensch on my side. An effective and sometimes rabid attack Conservative, but can you walk the walk ? Do you want to improve the lives of the ordinary people ?

If you can,  I will let you off the fact that your members interests declare that you earn money from the Murdoch empire which could bring into question your defence of them.

Still Going to Vote

My ambitions to exercise my vote on Thursday continue.

Last night I spent further time trying to fact find so I can make an informed choice.

I resorted to the latest edition of the local rag as i thought this may contain useful information. A list of candidates was printed along with an interview ( part of a series apparently ) with the local Conservative party leader setting out their policies. Nothing else.

I did a further search on twitter and in fact found a member of my local council ( not my ward ) promoting ( again ) the Conservative position. First bit of local politics I have found.

A troll through the Green party website found a list of policies.

Still cannot find out anything more about the labour or Lib Dem candidates.

So my current position is that the Conservative party are ( and I use this term loosely ) giving me the most information upon which to make my vote.

A search on the 2011 vote for my ward shows that there were candidates from ratepayers, UKIP, and the BNP at the last election but not this time. This may be reflected by the fact that the Conservative candidate in 2011 was elected by ( just ) more votes than all the other candidates combined.

I still have no idea as to the Labour or Lib Dem candidates policies or a profile for any candidate other than the conservative.

Google provides reporting of many a squabble at local council meeting but is silent as to the candidates.

It does seem incredible in the current age that I am having such a hard time in obtaining basic information to make an important choice.

" Fight the battles you can win " is often sage advice but it seems to me that 3 of the 4 candidates have stood for election on no other basis that it would have been " bad form " not to have a candidate. Which sucks.

I continue determined to vote.