Origin North West

Three men burgled a house, tied up the owner and his family and threatened them. The owner got free and chased them down the street with his friends. The owner apparently hit the burglar too hard and was jailed for 3 years while the burglar who had 50 other offences was set free.  The other two burglars haven’t been found which seems surprising as you would have thought there would be some leverage on the one caught.

Believe it or not this is how the law in Britain works. The victim becomes the offender and is jailed, the original offender becomes the offended and is set free and his accomplices forgotten. 

The papers contain opinions supporting liberal policies but thinking this is further than intended as well as those in less moderate papers who are taking smelling salts. Legal experts say the law only allows you to hit a burglar proportionately and today the Conservatives have said this seems adequate.

Could it be that this is a forerunner for plans to set up courses for those who wish to become qualified legal burglars and the legalising of burglary up to a certain value.

At this moment a middle aged man who led a blameless life, set up his own business and brought up a family in a nice house is in jail for 3 years.  Surely this is wrong and excessive even on the most liberal basis. A New Years Pardon if you please Mr Johnson.

It’s been announced that in the period before the next General Election there will be 3 debates on TV between Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg. These will be shown across Britain in turn on ITV, Sky and BBC.

Can’t say I’m sure what this will add.  Surely we’ll see and hear these 3 too often during the campaign. Don’t they appear on TV and in Parliament making the same points week after week.  Don’t GB and DC keep making the same barbed comments about ‘he wouldn’t have done anything’ and ‘he banished boom and bust’.  Doesn’t Prime Ministers Question Time every week in Parliament exercise a good deal of competitive verbal jousting. Party Political Broadcasts as well.

Add to that the other parties who are unhappy about being omitted. The SNP, PC, Greens and UKIP have a valid claim to be heard as loudly as anyone else. Surely if a party is qualified to have a Party Political Broadcast they are qualified to debate.

It most likely is that this is really a journalists feast.  Probably reading about it will be more interesting than actually hearing it unless one of the leaders takes on a nasty side or maybe develops a new and interesting tick.  Or perhaps one of the debaters has been doing something sleezy or will come out as gay during the debate.  Unlikely, so what sort of compelling TV is this for most of the population? 

It’ll be hyped as unmissable, and after all  I think I’ll have to take a look for that golden nugget one of them might have. Then if it’s 1-0-0 after the first perhaps it’ll be worth looking in for the equaliser.  Maybe only the last one will count for much. The campaign in swing everything looking great for one party, then can it be turned round in one moment in a debate. Bring on Gary Lineker.

Global Warming: is it an issue or will it be more pleasant here at 53degrees north?  Will it be goodbye to Lancashire west of Preston?  Some simple stuff.

Global Warming is said to be caused by the increased concentration of the suns heat in the atmosphere as the level of certain gases increase.  This effect can be simply created in a laboratory by heating a large container that is filled with different concentrations of gas.

There are several of these gases but Carbon Dioxide is the one most commonly quoted and it’s concentration has increased to just under 400 parts per million (ppm) an increase of about 30% in 50 years.  This is known because records have been kept.

Data from much earlier times is obtained from the air trapped in samples of arctic ice that are drilled out like removing the core of an apple. The deeper the ice the older it is. Also rates of growth of plants like trees and from fossil data show how temperature changed in the past. The carbon and temperature data is compared to give a temperature v carbon chart.

For most of the time carbon remained below 300 ppm until relatively recently and tended to go as low as 200. It seems that cold periods coincide with low levels of carbon dioxide.

The last decade has seen several years of the hottest on record and this appears to align with the carbon increase.

Experiments can be wrong, the weather is a complicated beast and humans are relatively puny in world terms.  But in terms of risk there does appear to be a good chance that the science has some substance and that if carbon dioxide continues to rise then temperatures will also rise. 

Carbon worries can be supplemented by worries about the effects of increases in population.  Also at this time large areas of forest are being cut down when we’ve always been told the Amazon forest provides the oxygen of the world.  Very large countries like China and India are significantly increasing their resource demands and emissions of gases so the levels of carbon are expected to continue to increase.  It is forecast that annual carbon emissions will increase by about 14% in the next 10 years and recent discussions were meant to reduce it by about 5% overall from that emitted now ( now 47bn tons a year, forecast 54bn tons, target 44bn tons).

The effects of increased temperature are already visible in the polar regions and on glaciers where the ice is retreating. Much of the ice is above the water and on land so more water is flowing into the sea and increasing its level. Heat is causing areas of desert like the Sahara to spread and causing famine in many countries.  Increased temperatures were also said to have created larger than usual hurricanes in the Caribbean a couple of years ago and even if this was not global warming it is a warning of what increased temperature can do.  There are a lot of forecasts about potential weather effects including a change to the Gulf Stream which will effect the UK perhaps making it colder.  Although detailed forecasts are probably one of the most uncertain parts of the debate.

So is it worth spending money now to reduce gases, slow deforestation and it’s effects.  Well I have several insurance and security measures at home and I’ve never seemed to need any of it.  But they give me peace of mind and if they weren’t there I’d probably be sorry.  In conclusion the science has so many credible aspects that, like an insurance policy, measures are worth taking to stabilise and reduce emissions. Otherwise it will be a gamble with the future of cities like London and New York and many other coastal regions including Lancashire west of Preston.

It was cold this week in Northern Europe.  The 15th United Nations Climate Change Conference, Copenhagen, December 7th to 19th 2009 (COP15 for short) took place. 15,000 delegates debated the heating of the atmosphere, while several thousand chanted outside. The conclusion of the discussion being something only a little more than existed on December 6th. Some vague statements were issued, including limiting climate change to within 2degC, limits to deforestation and it is said a quantity of money is available but not who is providing it.

It was lost on the climate concerned delegates that one of them travelled 8000 miles in a special Boeing 747 and only stayed a few hours.  Then after 15,000 delegates had sat for 14 days, the final statement was agreed by a handful of delegates representing only themselves in a short meeting.  To temper this I’ve always been a supporter of Parkinson’s Laws relating to the number of people needed to make a decision and the time allowed to make a decision. So to have 15,000 involved in making a decision for 2 weeks sounds a recipe for disaster.

It seems Europe will reduce carbon output although the main emitting countries, the US and China, are not committed to reduce and not in absolute terms.

There is always a nagging fear that climate change measures suit the socially cossetting and spending governments of Europe who in general don’t take too much notice of the opinions of their populations.  Whereas in libertarian countries like the USA the population don’t want cossetting and if the tide washes up over their houses they just move and build elsewhere.  I do admire that, although I like my social insurance.

Also is there any truth in the Chinese stance that Europe and the USA created all the carbon and therefore they should reduce first. At least this might be an acknowledgement that carbon is man-made and therefore if that is the case then those named are guilty.  On the other side is whether having seen someone going down the wrong path would you follow them. Of all the countries China would appear to be in a good position to significantly increase it’s clean power output as it is so good at manufacturing and has cheap labour costs.

Most systems have a natural limitation and at some point break down and stop the cycle. Although sometimes the cycle stops and is irrepairably broken. How the planet reacts to increases in warming gases, population growth and the stripping of resources is to be seen.  Will the system slow down naturally or will there be a dramatic event.  COP15 didn’t do as much as it might but there is no dramatic instance yet. It seems those who might help are further away from being impacted so don’t see a need.

The British Airways dispute brought out more discussion on its pension deficit.  It is said to be £3.7bn and almost 100,000 staff live in expectation of some payment from it, far bigger than the company. Add to that the Royal Mail and several other large companies with big deficits and it seems to be a precarious path we are treading.

Once these schemes were beacons of comfort.  Now they seem to be a cause of concern to both worker and retired, not to mention the company. Add this to job insecurity and falling economies.  Maybe they go hand in hand and when the economy improves so will they. But it seems unreal for schemes designed to give a pension for a few years to now have to pay out to a baby-boom generation living much longer and with a bit of inflation proofing.

For years pension schemes seemed like friendly institutions offering early retirements, paying out if you left early or were sick and needed the money.  The BA scheme recently contributed a few hundred million to shore up BA even though it was massively in debt. We also felt that somehow they were guaranteed by the government and controlled by very disciplined and conservative experts.

None of that appears to have been true.  Now to add a bit more uncertainty, the opportunity is being seized by some financial companies to buy company pension schemes and treat them as stand-alone entities.   How much of a risk this is I don’t know but if it was my pension I’d be very worried.  One slip in the pot and it won’t come back so they need very careful management.

If any of these big schemes fall through how confident can we be that the Pension Protection Fund won’t collapse like a pack of  cards. What happens to the last few schemes standing?  It has already been seen that some pension trustees are trying to take advantage of the assurance scheme to their gain.

Like the economy as a whole we keep our heads down, hope the storm passes and think about what to do if it comes. Maybe if you can, make some diversified scheme.  It would be good to have the government guarantee payment but there are people without pensions and people with private pensions and it could get complicated. Those with public service pensions are the lucky ones, inflation proofed as well.

Mr Pension Regulator are you good enough. Can you control the fund managers. Are the accounting rules appropriate.  Is the actuary using decent assumptions. Is anyone taking excessive fees. Is regulation allowing some risk but keeping a sound foundation. Any buried mines out there.  You’re the expert, we all expect…………

BA cabin crew  today voted to strike for 10 days over the Christmas holiday about changes to their working practises.  Those who have booked Christmas holidays with BA must be worrying. 

It is reported in todays Times that BA cabin crew earn twice as much Virgin cabin crew. Seems hard to believe, is there a catch?  Also BA have a policy that if you stay long enough you become the cabin boss. Sounds like the selection process from hell. Would you want to work for someone who isn’t the best?

BA have managed to hang on in the face of budget airlines but appear to be in a 1970’s timewarp where the staff still live the nationalised way. Reminds me of our old electricity company, Norweb. When they opened a store to compete with Comet they kept their stuffy old ways but didn’t last long. They once refused to sell me a Video Camera unless I produced an ID so I went into Comet, bought it and went back to show them. 

We used to fly to Australia with BA from Manchester, every couple of years, and I was proud to fly the flag at that time. But it seemed to get more and more difficult going through Heathrow.  When we missed our connection and had to queue till 1am to get a new flight allocation and in the morning no bus turned up to transfer us across terminals, and then our bags were lost, I knew it was the last time. So we now go direct from Manchester with Singapore Airlines which is quicker and  less hassle.  The service with Singapore Airlines is very good as well, I don’t know what BA offer nowadays but with SIA nothing seems too much on the flight, we choose our seat at booking and when we’ve a query they reply promptly.

I think BA management need to decide what is best practise and go for it, whatever. These annual strikes or threats of strikes are a killer to confidence.  For me to fly BA again I’ll need at least 5 years of no strike threats as it appears new topics for disputes and antiquated practises are emerging every year.

The government doesn’t want to cut spending until the economy is robust enough to stand it. That sounds logical. On the other hand very big increases in spending  began this year and begin to accelerate like a shark lenders interest payments.

Since 2000 government spending has ramped up at a rate not seen before except in wartime. We all had a ball at the time and now we’re hooked. Like addicts, even today’s minor tweaks to the budget had the public sector unions perspiring at the collar. Yet public spending was well over double what it was 10 years ago even before the crisis.  Like the bankers, public workers have seen a bonanza from the government but don’t think they have and don’t want it to end.

It seems the government isn’t making any big decisions at this time. Today was as Mr Cable said about boilers and bingo.  Although if the government is playing politics what are the opposition to do as they might appear the evil wolf when in all likelihood there is little difference between what any of them will or can do.

The Irish government has today announced major cuts. Hopefully it won’t come to anything as big as that but it seems improbable that today’s announcement in parliament has any true relationship to what needs doing to the terrible UK  budget situation.

Yet I’ve lived through recessions before and uncomfortable as they are most of the population gets through relatively unscathed. Although when Mr Callaghan borrowed from the IMF in the 70’s the public sector unions revolted at what appeared to be minor pay restraint and in came Mrs Thatcher. With an election imminent Mr Brown isn’t going on that route.

Is the Smart Meter going to provide the benefits claimed?  They say the unreliable wind power will mean less peak capability so incentives will be given to turn off power at peak times and that home generators can sell back into the grid.

This sounds good but surely issuing these meters to people with home generators would be a first priority. Then a second priority will be those whose energy use exceeds the norm.

I’d be amazed if having one in our house saved a penny. There must be millions like me who keep an eye on their heating timer and setting. There is a compromise between the budget allowed and how warm the house is.   The opposite might be true as it could encourage energy use if it was cheaper off peak and more expensive at peak time.

Also we have just had our gas and electricity meters changed. What happens to these old meters? Who is making the new ones?  Should they be British made meters or will 26million electricity meters and 21 million gas meters be bought from China so save pounds but cost jobs, well-being and health.

What alternatives are there? If I was to ensure minimal peak power use the biggest savings in our house would be a timer on the electric water heater to ensure it is off at peak (there already is one).  The biggest user of fuel by far in our house is the central heating and that is already on only for a limited time as we’ve gone more into heating individual rooms around the time we use them.

How much incentive are we going to get to improve our energy use. The people on the trials with these units are like the well known Hawthorn experiment where people being watched worked harder and harder.  In reality the meter will soon just be a background item that no-one notices. Surely it will be preferable that  its introduction should come with some cost offsetting incentive like going to a new tariff or buying a wind generator to give you a new meter rather than a blanket change over. 

Who is paying for this?  It seems the government is announcing this when surely if it is so wonderful the utility companies would be launching it. I would imagine the utility companies see it as good business just fitting these new units.  Who wouldn’t with some 50m meters to change sounds like a good earner.

Overall without further education it appears the strategy for rolling out the new meters is flawed and that the benefits of their use are not as great as claimed.

Corus announced the probable closure or mothballing of their steel factory on the Tees employing 1700 people and local businesses.  It has contracts for 5 more years but the overseas customers are backing out of the deal as the steel price has fallen too far below their contracted level.

The recession reducing demand. The present source of minerals and destination of the steel. The ability to produce steel cheaper or more locally overseas all stood against the Teesside plant. Although it is said the plant is very efficient and a buyer might be found.

Coal, minerals and ship building all came together to make this an area of steel making and some remains.

Corby is one of the best known one-horse towns whose steel mill closed. Government support helped to ease it and some success is claimed although I’ve read accounts that it’s more a sticking plaster than a solution.

A worker on the radio spoke of the apprenticeships, skills and experience of the workforce and you can only imagine where these core skills will be found in years to come, if they are ever needed.   I was an apprentice for 5 years and although I worked in an office for most of my life the ability to do those tasks still exists and sometimes I’m amazed at the lack of basic skills and knowledge in some younger people.  But would you learn to wire and file if you could sit on a phone all day, yes I’d say.

If this is coupled with reports of the chemical industry on Teesside the future for the area doesn’t look so good. Yet this is Labour heartland and it seems improbable that the government has thrown so much cash at part of the economy where it wouldn’t expect much support and is letting its heartlands die.   Maybe they rue putting all their eggs into one basket.  I think they should, but it’s part of a greater problem to Europe and possibly the world if expansion in Asia continues at its current rate. Even the mighty industries of Germany are feeling the draught.

Rail Magazine noted Britains first Class 70 freight loco’s landed in the UK from the USA. Not long ago the first Class 90’s, named Javelin for high speed lines in Kent came in from Japan. Pendolino’s from Italy.  Some Eurostars from France.

We exported some British made 30 year old Class 87’s to Bulgaria.

Seems like everyone is building loco’s except the UK. This is fairly typical of UK manufacturing yet it is said we are the 6th biggest manufacturer in the World.

The philosophy of getting the best deal and using the saving elsewhere, not spending on development that might not be recovered and spending that elsewhere sounds admirable.  Yet there is a certain shallowness about it.

It is often said that governments don’t make the best industrial investment decisions and after a number of notable bad decisions it seems the government totally handed over to the market.

Strictly speaking the government can’t be seen to be making decisions based on national criteria although it seems to be unquestioned that other countries have home made railways and their car industries miraculously continue despite products of dubious quality.

It also seems the days of militant trade unions have gone and now British workers work very hard for foreign owners.  British companies were unable to take benefit of this new reality, possibly because there was always a feeling the government would bail them out.

It wouldn’t be too difficult for the government to give a contract to a British company. The high speed train programme of £30bn, how much of this is for locomotives. How difficult would it be to establish a UK loco and engine manufacturing capability in a company such as GKN with some training thrown in via local colleges and technology demonstration. Perhaps a step in rail technology is due as the new high speed rail extension will take 15 years to bring on stream.  The government left the market to go its way and has spent unprecedented amounts that make the inputs to British Leyland look like loose change. A fraction of that spent on technology would have provided a tangible output, less imports and potential exports,  less inequality of employee salaries, and employment of a more multi-ability workforce.