Origin North West

The coalition announced yesterday between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats appears to be one of the best outcomes for many a year. It provides a healthy majority and takes the best policies of both parties and reduces the possibilities of the worst ones.  A more socially liberal agenda coupled with a more hard-nosed defence policy seems in tune with the 21st century. Even the basic concept of parties working together seems in tune with the 21st century.

Many LibDem supporters don’t like this and some Conservatives don’t.  But the Liberal Democrats might have continued whistling in the wind with their policies ignored and now some are being promoted. Some of their members will be visibly involved in serious government.  This must be good for them except for those who might have voted Labour. Although many politicians warned about the dangers of tactical voting.

At the moment the two leaders are in a honeymoon period even to the extent that they are trying to cement the knot for 5 years. Time will tell.

Some are saying this is new ground, a hung parliament. What might be new is if the Conservatives and the Lib-Dems combine. There are so many areas of policy where they don’t agree.  Yet it could be what is needed. A Conservative party with its hard edges taken off. A Lib-Dem party with its odd box policies put to one side for now. A combination with no dependence on trade unions and a strong belief in personal liberty.

A sticking point might be electoral reform. Offering some kind of talking shop isn’t going to fool anyone. If the Conservatives fear there never being a single governing party of the right they should awaken to life in a democracy because if that is the case then that is what the people are voting for.

A combination of Conservatives and Lib-Dems would have a tidy majority so MP’s who feel strongly against something, for example European or nuclear policies could probably be allowed to vote as they wished. It could be said that if the combined parties can’t carry off a policy then it isn’t what is wanted anyway.  In some cases Labour might vote to assist the passage but it would be foolish to think they wouldn’t find a way to object and not assist.

A Labour – Lib-Dem combination would seem more natural, yet such a combination hasn’t got a parliamentary majority so isn’t strong,  and wouldn’t even have half of the votes cast. So it seems right to explore the Conservative – Lib-Dem options and if there are strong objectors on either side it will depend on how many there are as you can’t make everyone happy.

The leaked memo from the Foreign Office on the Popes visit to the UK is either one of its biggest blunders or could be thought deliberate to placate those who oppose the Popes preachings. The Catholic Church has had some bad press lately and there are several areas where Catholic beliefs are very different from the UK government, such as on abortion, contraception, gay rights and although not currently government policy euthanasia could become another one.

The theory of some government support for the memo should be resisted as you would hope the government would see the loss is far greater than the gain. Although there is a worrying factor that people in government departments discussed these ideas and actually considered them worth recording.

No matter what you think of the Catholic faith and the Pope, and I’m not a member, there are millions of worshippers in the UK and millions who will flock to see the Pope visit the UK.  Those who want to disrupt should have some common decency and allow the leader of one of the worlds greatest churches a peaceful and welcoming visit.

Another case of contradiction - the Human Right to protest opposing the Human Right to worship in peace.

The people of Ireland and Greece are suffering in the Euro. The Irish have taken their medicine on the chin while the Greeks are reluctant to accept it. In both cases it isn’t clear why the countries are in the Euro. Their economies are so small that they are always going to get little consideration when it comes to supporting the Euro. If Germany needs an adjustment in the interest rate then the interest rate will change.  If Greece needs it, well that’s another matter.

The Euro is a good idea but the criteria for membership isn’t rigorous enough. If the UK had been in the Euro there is no way Germany and France could have supported it in the recession and we’d  be facing massive pay cuts and redundancies. Even EUphile me has realised that keeping out of the Euro has been a major plank in helping the UK economy in the recession.

It would be interesting to read any other thoughts on UK membership.  The Liberal Democrats support joining the Euro and maybe in next weeks leaders debate the subject will come up.

Three days after the leader’s debate the pollsters are saying Nick Clegg is the leading leader.  Who is this man?

Born in Chalfont St Giles, Buckinghamshire in 1967 and went on to one of Britains leading public schools, Westminster School. Then to Cambridge to study archeology while doing some acting.  Did two post degree studies and became a journalist.  In 1994 he worked for the European Commission before becoming a Euro-MP in 1999 and an MP at Westminster in 2005.  Winning the Lib Dem leadership battle in 2007 and now in 2010 winning the first leaders debate.   Clean in the expenses scandal and heroic in some circles for his claimed sleeping with no more than 30 women and setting fire to his professors cactii. 

Is against the storing of innocent peoples DNA, a laudable trait.  Supports prison welfare.  Had involvement in environmental and animal welfare as well as international trade discussions.

Overall seems a decent enough.

Well done, the debate was a success. Seems to be a consensus that Clegg, Cameron and Brown was the order of success, yet in reality there was no outright winner and no  outright loser and two more debates to go. That Nick Clegg could speak confidently and naturally, if not a bit fast, seems to have been a surprise factor for many. David Cameron and Gordon Brown made no significant inroads into each other.

Gordon Brown made a bit of a hit with his comment saying the Conservatives would cut police budgets more than Labour which seemed to surprise everyone, including David Cameron. David Cameron came back strongly with a story about a very violent crime and the culprit getting a short prison sentence. Gordon Brown has the handicap that he’s said he’ll do things before and somehow they never appear to be quite what was said as well as 13yrs of baggage. David Cameron has to show he is more than not being Gordon Brown.

Nick Clegg spoke of the increase in tax threshold being a new idea, that they will look for an alternative to a Trident replacement, opposed immigration limits and his seat in Sheffield was mentioned several times perhaps to distract from his public school background. Wasn’t particularly pushed as the other two were aimed at each other.

The next debate will no doubt take lessons from this and Nick Clegg might find the ride a bit bumpier.  Perhaps Gordon Brown will stop the smile that looks so patronising, David Cameron won’t stand with that distant horizon look, maybe Nick Clegg will appear less anxious about getting his points over. A better method of signalling who is to speak might help, at one point it appeared that David Cameron was left out of the debate. Someone has suggested the audience should be allowed to applaud – please no. Is there anything worse than the Question Time applause battles with someone so eager to get the first clap. Yet sometimes it can be a good feature and how to capture the good without the bad is difficult.

Disappointing that the biggest issue in week 1 of the election campaign is a 1% increase in National Insurance included in the budget and rejected by the Conservatives.

That over 50 top business leaders came out saying they were against it and it would reduce employment has been the flare that lit up the debate. This is said to be a reflection that business has fallen out with Labour after many years when they trumpeted its support.

There appears to be some simple arithmetic to support the business leaders case. National Insurance is charged from a very low wage level and a 1% increase has a disproportionate impact on business performance measures.  It could be the difference between profit and loss in these straightened times. Businesses have already driven efficiency as hard as they can.  The inevitable response must be to get it back either through not recruiting, shedding staff or increasing prices.

The government throws this back by saying the Conservatives will need to take the money from somewhere else and the business leaders are deceived. However as neither party has come clean on what they really intend to do about the deficits this seems like smoke and mirrors.   There seems to also be confusion that some people say the Conservatives are taking money out of the economy by rejecting this measure when actually it is the opposite. The government is taking money out of the economy with the measure and are paying themselves when they admit they are making inefficient use of taxpayers money.

Overall though it seems a minor issue has been blown into a major one and sub-plots have grown all around it. Lets hope it gets better than this although it probably won’t.

After bad news in chocolate and steel manufacturing some good news in cars and nuclear engineering. Most of it with the help of government loans.

Nissan announced that their new electrically powered car, the Nissan Leaf, will be produced in Sunderland from 2013. Up to 50,000 cars a year will be made.  Nissan stated that the UK commitment to providing the infrastructure and education to operate these cars helped the decision.  The North East has agreed to fit 13,000 charging points and London 25,000. Also a novel leasing arrangement for batteries will ease the cost of ownership and another plus the batteries will be made in Sunderland as well.  Photographs of the car look quite smart with nothing to make it look different. Ironically the ‘green’ car will be produced next to the Juke urban off-roader which doesn’t sound quite as green.

Ford announced about £1.5bn investment in new efficient engine R&D and manufacturing in the UK.  A significant portion of the money will be loans from the UK Automotive Assistance Programme and the EU. Ford will test 15 electric vehicles as well as work on low carbon engines.  Ford produce 25% of their world supply of engines in the UK.

Sheffield Forgemasters received government loan support to make a 15,000 tonne forging press, making the company one of two companies in the world capable of making specific nuclear components. The government said the UK can produce 50% of the parts for a nuclear power station and the investment will take it to 70%. The government is also to support up to 1000 apprentice places a year in the nuclear industry.

It is a curious business the offering of loans to keep manufacturing in a country. Subsidising has long been illegal in the EU. However such large scale investment is often only possible with government assistance. Vice versa governments often say that infrastructure projects, for such as energy, cannot be afforded without industrial investment.  Does one balance the other out or is it just convenient to make the best of both worlds. No doubt a company has to get the best deal it can so an existing plant must count for something and make the loan required less than it would be from a place without a plant or who didn’t have other incentives to offer such as car power point infrastructure. We can only welcome this as good news.

A double nightmare event at the Raj Proot Restaurant in East Sussex when the restaurant owner stopped youths raiding his beer cellar and was then arrested, fingerprinted, photographed and had his DNA taken.

Nightmare 1: to be arrested for stopping thieves.

Nightmare 2: to have your fingerprints, photo and DNA sample taken for doing what should be your duty.

Apparently one of the youth’s said he’d been struck by the owner. Sounds a good thing to say knowing it could deflect your blame.  In a fight to escape you’d expect some interaction and it was reported in one paper their friends were kicking the locked front door while diners were cowering inside. Taking in the owner and doing a full police record on him seems wrong though. You’d think if you’d stopped thieves the police would be your friend and petty comment from the offenders would be brushed aside.

I’ve sometimes imagined I’d refuse to give my DNA sample but it’s Catch 22 as you are then arrested for not doing it and they are then entitled to take it. How long will the DNA record be kept. In Scotland it would be destroyed but in England it might be kept for years. Such an intrusion on your liberty.

There are those who use the phrase Broken Britain and until recently I’ve thought it a bit exaggerated. Yet in the last few weeks we’ve had a couple of deaths caused by youths terrorising disabled people in their homes over long periods of time and no-one responding to calls for help. Not to mention a Sikh killed by 4 youths in his shop and the burgled householder being put in prison.  It’s just come to mind that 3 of these events happened with different ethnic members of the public, if that’s at all relevant.

Another feature of these incidents appears to be the involvement, or lack of involvement of the police who I’ve always held in high regard. Yet they seem to be arresting innocent members of the public and ignoring calls for help.  Just what is going on? 

Something seems to be broken. Perhaps it’s  fundamental. The law is offering too much protection to the law breakers. Yet some would say that they are being harassed by the police because of their colour or dress.  To protect these cases it appears the whole of British law is losing the respect of the general population. Yet, if only it was that simple. Some talk of too much police paperwork although the government say they’re sorting that and so the story goes on. And on.

In Switzerland it’s illegal to keep a budgerigar alone in a cage and today there is a referendum on whether animals should have legal representation if they are mistreated.   I’m not keen on the latter but quite like the double budgie law and similar.  What better test for humanity and decency than how you treat those in a lesser position.

It makes me think of work. Our company would spend a fortune on management training but it didn’t change the standard where a manager would talk about anything on the phone while you sat twiddling your thumbs in his office, but as soon as his boss came in the phone was put down.  Then you’d listen while he roared with laughter at the slightest hint of a joke his boss made, while agreeing after what a fabulous chap he is even though neither of you were certain.  They weren’t all like that though, only around 80%.

The government kept the car scrappage scheme in place and extended it to central heating boilers, claiming it as a big success. Yet looking at car sales in the last few months it appears the makers of Hyundai and Kia have done very well. You could say in a recession people will buy such cars, although it seems that a large discount paid for by the taxpayer will help.

All over Europe car sales are said to have benefited from scrappage schemes, although not many cars made in Britain seem to have benefited a lot. The Fiesta seems to sell well but it’s not British.  The Astra is British and seems to do well, but the Mini dropped out of the top 10.  Jaguar has improved sales as well although that’s more to do with the value of the pound. If you have a 10 year old car worth £2000 then you aren’t going to afford a £12,000 car unless you trade in your sons car and buy him a better banger.

Then you might say VAT, then 15%, transport and dealer costs are in the UK which is a fair amount and the scrapyard is getting business. Even so it seems an extravagent way to spend taxpayers money when a lot of the benefits are going overseas.

Then there is the boiler replacement scheme.  The cost of boilers is always a contentious issue. You can go into a DIY store and find one for a few hundred, yet if you contact a large company to install one it costs thousands and you might think the discount is lost in there somewhere.  Like many things related to house maintenance there isn’t a price list so you never know if the discount is being taken by the installer.

These schemes tax the imagination. It isn’t easy to come up with a quick hit to get a flat economy moving, but whether such broad brush schemes are the best way is open to question.

The Icelanders referendum came out strongly against paying the debt of their banks for the rest of their lives.  Maybe it’s not supporting your own side but I agree with them to a degree.

In most businesses a check is done on how financially stable a business partner is. It would seem obvious that a country of 300,000 cannot sustain a multi-billion pound business so how was it allowed. Why did government institutions invest heavily. You might think we employ highly qualified civil servants and financial experts who would have warned us about businesses who are way out on a limb, but we were all caught sleeping on the job in the euphoric boom of 2007.

On the basis that they were allowed to trade it seems there appears to be a shared liability.  Perhaps it isn’t logical because if it was a larger country we’d expect them to pay. On the other hand if it was a very large country we might be in the opposite situation of being forced to accept what they offer.  Perhaps we should think like that but, in this case I’d support offering generous terms with perhaps a non-financial price related to politics or future business, like guaranteed fish supplies.

The news today is interpreting Mrs Clintons visit to Argentina and the words she used as a tacit agreement that Argentina has a case in the Falkland Islands.

Someone commented that Texas, New Mexico and Alaska could be said to be disputed territories and at some stage maybe that will get stronger.  Others comment that troops could be pulled out of Afghanistan to make the Falklands secure.

Certainly makes you think. My own interpretation is that I’d support the Falklands more than a presence in Afghanistan.  It seems a clearer debate.  Which leads to thinking about our presence in Afghanistan.

The BBC announced some changes yesterday with a view to focussing more on quality programming and keeping the license fee stable.  Three headline changes are the closure of Radio 6, Asian Network and a reduction in the website.

The BBC is one of Britains premier institutions but there can be no doubt that it has expanded far too broadly for too long and somehow been allowed to get away with it.  My own opinion is that the license fee should be capped at £120 for the next 10 years. The excellence of the BBC should be unharmed by this as it’s cost increases are more related to excessive air time given to fringe programming and apparant over representation like teams from different channels at the same event.

With facilities like the iPlayer it should be possible to programme less time and enable it to be watched or heard when required.

At the moment Radio 6 is getting the most support against closure,  and I admit to never having heard it. From what I’ve read it is claimed new bands are given an opportunity on this station. Yet watching the Brits this year I didn’t hear any new bands – Kasabian, Robbie Williams and Liam Gallagher got the British headlines. It seems that whatever they do in the USA is producing better new acts. No British world talent has been found for a few years, Arctic Monkeys come to mind and Lilly Allen seems well known.

I will admit to being a fan of the BBC and fortunately as it is a charge on every household its charges are able to be kept down to what appears quite cheap when compared with other stations.  Although when I add it to my other subscriptions and the broadband, telephone and mobile charges my bills for communication become large.  Also there is a conundrum that if the BBC focusses on too much quality it might lose the justification for a compulsory charge as its appeal will be too limited.

Being interested in what some call the productive as well as high tech part of the economy it’s worrying that Astra Zeneca are cutting back on their research facilities and closing the Leicester site with the loss of 1,200 jobs.   The company state they are focussing on the Cheshire site for UK research.

I’ve read a few comments saying that a number of pharmaceutical companies are moving their facilities east, usually in smaller numbers than this.  This industry has been held as one of the UK’s torch bearers into the future but appears to be going the same way as the heavy industries.

A curious case of a country 300 miles away claiming sovereignty over islands of no previous relationship in the middle of an ocean.

All over the world are islands populated by various peoples, some who’ve been there as long as time recalls, others who arrived and transplanted indiginous peoples, others who came to uninhabited almost unknown islands that no-one was interested in.

Of all these you might think the first and third would have fairly clear sovereignty. Of the second maybe there would be some dispute although in most cases it is resolved by election or just a shared long running disagreement.

Perhaps there is a case that geographic proximity to a larger country should make an island dependant.  This would make many islands more disputable than the Falklands e.g. the Canary Islands, the Caribbean Islands, the Channel Islands.

Islands currently self governed and previously uninhabited and hardly known like the Falkland Islands seem a case of undisputed sovereignty. 

This week the whole of South America and the Caribbean has resolved to support Argentina making a claim on the islands even though they have nothing to do with and are a long way from Argentina.  Seems sticky ground really.  The Caribbean Islands are closer to South America than the Falklands so who is most at risk in the long term.  Often others look to take advantage or shield behind  precedents.

There is a risk that when a country becomes unstable and struggling that it will seek a diversion. Some might argue that both countries are in this position to some degree.  There is a test of maturity under way that might make a mutually beneficial agreement more difficult, although it might make it easier. I haven’t read any logical case to to support Argentina’s claim.

Gordon Brown announced the Labour election slogan ‘A future fair for all’ yesterday and said the Conservatives ‘are not the party of the mainstream majority’.

An interesting statement about the mainstream majority. At the last election Labour got 38% of the votes and the Conservatives 34% yet Labour had 356 seats against the Conservatives 198.  It seems 4% of the votes creates a majority of 158 seats or about 25%.  Hardly representative and hardly showing that any party has a mainstream majority. The Liberals got 22% of the vote, their 62 seats representing about 10% of the seats.

It could be said Gordon Brown was right to put through an electoral reform vote recently. Yet there are several methods of electoral reform and it appeared Mr Brown had chosen one that favoured Labour just before it was likely to be of most use.   Seems to smack of one poor system being replaced by another manipulation. Seems what you’d expect in todays climate of deception.

The electoral changes are unlikely to get through both houses before the election. Although the next election has changed boundaries on many seats. This is because the city centre seats mainly held by Labour have become very small as people move to the suburbs. So re-aligning these is said to favour the Conservatives a bit. The Conservatives need a lot more than this to make an effect. Overturning such a massive majority as Labour hold is almost unheard of.

Labour have put faith in their slogan of ‘a fair future for us all’.   Doesn’t sound very slick, gets me a bit tongue-tied.  I could get ‘fair’ in my mind. The ‘us all’ bit sounds a bit absolute, like ‘we’ve abolished boom and bust’ and ‘British jobs for British workers’. Things you can’t achieve.  Although even after 13 years of power the Labour politicians in general have a more impressive appearance than the Conservatives although you could say the same about Labour in 1997. The biggest thing against Labour is that they seemed to fall into the trap of the most profligate credit card users and spent excessively so that Britain is the worst placed of any western major economy. Even to the extent that Britains future as a major economy is in jeopardy.  On the other hand there are a lot of new schools and hospitals, but it’s now like building a very large garage on your property and finding you can no longer afford a car.

People speak of companies and their morals. Banks have been getting a bad time lately in this department for the levels of salary their staff are paid, yet this doesn’t directly effect most people. Unlike the way banks, building societies and utility companies have been charging people a lot more if they don’t keep track of the latest offers.

I thought I was keeping up with my gas and electricity company but was surprised to check their latest web-based product and find it was about 5% cheaper than the account I changed to about 6 months ago.  How was I supposed to know that they are now on version 5 of their account and all those on earlier versions are paying more.

Same with my bank. I opened an account a couple of years ago and found that it was paying 0.1% while the latest is paying 2%.

My most annoying experience is with a home insurance company. I recently discovered an elderly relative was paying almost £500 to insure their modest semi compared to £200 for my own. Looking on the internet I discovered the same company was offering insurance for £180 and the level of cover was actually 3 times greater on the internet.  When I rang them they were quite unconcerned and even suggested I could pay more on the £500 policy to match the internet level of cover.   It seems you can’t buy the £500 policy now but if you are elderly you won’t know any different and they won’t tell you.  Insurance companies complain about customer fraud and put in measures making things more difficult for honest customers. Yet at the same time they are effectively what can be viewed as defrauding old people out of hundreds of pounds every year. I find it difficult to get my head round the morality of this. Surely it isn’t right?

Time of year to be thinking about getting over Christmas. Wonder why we buy so much chocolate at Christmas. My own worry is more about clogging up the veins as weight isn’t much of a problem.  I know I can put on weight like in my twenties, mainly drinking weight and when I stopped going to the pub 3 to 4 times a week I lost weight.

Ten years ago I joined a gym and did it on a monthly payment scheme because I thought I wouldn’t stay.  Yet I’m still there and in general go about 6 times a month. In the 10 years so many people have joined and lasted a couple of months and never to be seen again. They’re all convinced they’ll stay and some have told me their plans but soon fallen away.

My own experience in many activities is to keep it up you need a regular schedule that says, like, on Tuesday at 6pm I’ll be there. I found that doesn’t work for me at the gym. Other things come along, like you can’t eat first then go,  don’t want to do some heavy work and then go, don’t want to go to dig the garden get dirty and have a shower then go.  All I can recommend is to say that you will go at least once a week and try to fit in another so you do at least 6 in the month.

The other aspect is making a start after years of doing nothing.  Going to work and bragging you ran for 8 minutes at 8kph on the flat on a treadmill.  They must have thought me mad. Now I can run for ages but it took time and came in steps. Suddenly found I could up the speed and it felt great. Wish I were younger, need to keep the heart at a faily low level at my age, there’s a formula, and that limits my speed a lot.    I don’t do the other cardio-machines, like the step, bike, rotex or rowing  they give me pains where I don’t want them. Running at a slowish speed and a bit of stretching keeps me good and I can feel it every day.

Running for up to 30 minutes on the treadmill is more than most people want to do, and I did once have some girls loudly making comments about how boring that must be. You can watch TV and listen to music but I tend to think about things I want to do and if I want to give up, tell myself  just do another 5 minutes. How often can you fool yourself with this 5 minutes. I’ve done it loads of times. Near the end of the 5 minutes you’re thinking good nearly done but with seconds to go you say I’m fine I can manage another 5. Seems to work for me, must be mad.

Then there are the weights.  Doing the heavy stuff doesn’t appeal, 10 years on the weight-machines, using chrome dumb-bells (seem to be for ladies) and the mats (who’d have thought I do that after bad school mats and a cruel teacher). Never graduated to the barbell. With the number of reps building up the total the Technogym computer system at our gym tells me 10,000kg spread over different muscle groups is a good session for me along with 5km on the treadmill.

So I’d recommend finding a fitness centre and not being over ambitious or too enthusiastic, play it cool and keep going for the long term.

I was watching Dan Snow with his show about the power of the Royal Navy and it was apparant that the willingness to spend money on the future was the key to Britains success in the 18th and 19th centuries. Even though it was encouraged by the threat of foreign invasion.

This week I read with disappointment that Mr Obama is cutting the US manned moon programme. The disappointment was that the un-inhabited moon will be annexed by who-ever goes and stays. It seems the Chinese and Indian governments are viewing their future power symbolised by moon colonies. Yet the US isn’t. The US will be a clipped wing power by 2050 like Britain is now and as someone who has always seen the US as a beacon of technology it isn’t something I want to see.  Maybe I won’t because I’m too old now.

There are those who might think, sort out things on Earth first and such power plays are hostile and out-dated.  To that the answer is that the wise man invests for the future while budgeting for the present, mankind would be in caves if the cave was to be sorted first. To that end we are always pushing the boundaries and getting better.