Just heard that Obama is to forbid proprietary trading by American Banks in general - and Goldman Sachs in particular.
At least Obama is taking a firm line with banks, in contrast to the weak and ineffectual action the British Government has taken. The only thing Alistair Darling seems to have done is attempt to impose a 50% tax on bankers' bonuses; this doesn't actually affect the banks themselves, just some of their staff.
Thursday, 21 January 2010
Tuesday, 19 January 2010
Cadbury's. The crumbliest, flakiest takeover in the world
My manager recently brought back some Hershey chocolates from her trip to New York. They were disgusting, really gross. Like chalk. Everyone hated them. Kraft are no better. What chocolates do they make? Does anyone like their stuff? And now Cadbury’s, a great British institution, is to be sold to Kraft.
Wednesday, 13 January 2010
Chris Mullin MP to stand down - a shame, we need more like him
I read in The Independent today that Chris Mullin MP is to stand down after 23 years in Parliament.
He is best known to the public as the man who secured the release of the Birmingham Six. I attended a talk he gave at Warwick University in 1992 (I think) when I was a student there. I remember him commenting on the aftermath of the Birmingham Six case. This case was, of course, one of the darker episodes in British criminal history. Obviously for the atrocity committed by IRA cowards who threw bombs into pubs. But also for the further outrage that saw followed it: the police 'fitted up' 6 Irishmen that they knew very well to be innocent. They were physically and psychologically abused before confessions were fabricated and they were given life sentences. If the death penalty had been available they would have been hanged.
He is best known to the public as the man who secured the release of the Birmingham Six. I attended a talk he gave at Warwick University in 1992 (I think) when I was a student there. I remember him commenting on the aftermath of the Birmingham Six case. This case was, of course, one of the darker episodes in British criminal history. Obviously for the atrocity committed by IRA cowards who threw bombs into pubs. But also for the further outrage that saw followed it: the police 'fitted up' 6 Irishmen that they knew very well to be innocent. They were physically and psychologically abused before confessions were fabricated and they were given life sentences. If the death penalty had been available they would have been hanged.
Want an iPhone? Read this first!
This is a great article. I worked for this website -http://www.moneymagpie.com so I can vouch for them.
First it tells you which phones are actually better than the iPhone, feature-for-feature; then it does a true cost comparison; and best of all it shows you a clever way to save money by using a cashback credit card. I will do this myself. My Sony Eriksson Cybershot was good when I got it about 2 years ago but is now a bit of a dinosaur. The models in the article are a few months out-of-date but haven't changed that much.
Check it!
http://www.moneymagpie.com/article/672/dont-buy-an-apple-iphone-until-youve-read-this-article/
First it tells you which phones are actually better than the iPhone, feature-for-feature; then it does a true cost comparison; and best of all it shows you a clever way to save money by using a cashback credit card. I will do this myself. My Sony Eriksson Cybershot was good when I got it about 2 years ago but is now a bit of a dinosaur. The models in the article are a few months out-of-date but haven't changed that much.
Check it!
http://www.moneymagpie.com/article/672/dont-buy-an-apple-iphone-until-youve-read-this-article/
Chilcott - the non-event
The Chilcott Enquiry has been rumbling on for a while now. I have found it interesting, but not revealing. It has gone over - yet again - material that has been done to death by two earlier enquiries and endless debates. What surprises me is that anyone at all is surprised by any of the revelations that have emerged. I’m surprised by all the surprise.
So it seems that Tony Blair committed to disarming Iraq by any means necessary. If it couldn’t be done peacefully it would be done by force. Further, it seems that he supported Bush’s plan for regime change regardless of the WMD contortions at the UN. The UN was to be used to try and secure a resolution authorising war, but if it wouldn’t acquiesce the invasion was always going to go ahead anyway.
So? Tell us something we don’t know. Of course regime change was the goal. It was obvious to me from 2002.. It was plain as the nose on your face that the Bush administration wanted to remove him, by hook or by crook, and that WMD was used a convenient lever to try and bring world opinion, or at least the UN, onside. Saddam Hussein was a tyrant and his removal has done the whole world a favour. Check the record. He killed enough people to warrant removal.
Yes politicians probably did lie, or at least bend the truth, to accomplish this. You mean this is a surprise to you? I hope not, because if it is you are either very naïve or have been living on the dark side of the moon all your life. Politicians are never transparent.
Iraq is a democracy, all groups and parties are represented there and the country is getting back on its feet. I support Iraqi people and every opinion poll that’s ever been taken there shows that they supported the war and supported their process of elections. Then they wanted an end to occupation, so we left. They now have a democratically elected government and will soon be selling their oil by the oil-tanker load. They will do fine by themselves. In fact in a few years I look forward to visiting their ancient culture as a tourist. I wish them well. The war has done them a favour, and they’re intelligent enough to know it. End of.
So it seems that Tony Blair committed to disarming Iraq by any means necessary. If it couldn’t be done peacefully it would be done by force. Further, it seems that he supported Bush’s plan for regime change regardless of the WMD contortions at the UN. The UN was to be used to try and secure a resolution authorising war, but if it wouldn’t acquiesce the invasion was always going to go ahead anyway.
So? Tell us something we don’t know. Of course regime change was the goal. It was obvious to me from 2002.. It was plain as the nose on your face that the Bush administration wanted to remove him, by hook or by crook, and that WMD was used a convenient lever to try and bring world opinion, or at least the UN, onside. Saddam Hussein was a tyrant and his removal has done the whole world a favour. Check the record. He killed enough people to warrant removal.
Yes politicians probably did lie, or at least bend the truth, to accomplish this. You mean this is a surprise to you? I hope not, because if it is you are either very naïve or have been living on the dark side of the moon all your life. Politicians are never transparent.
Iraq is a democracy, all groups and parties are represented there and the country is getting back on its feet. I support Iraqi people and every opinion poll that’s ever been taken there shows that they supported the war and supported their process of elections. Then they wanted an end to occupation, so we left. They now have a democratically elected government and will soon be selling their oil by the oil-tanker load. They will do fine by themselves. In fact in a few years I look forward to visiting their ancient culture as a tourist. I wish them well. The war has done them a favour, and they’re intelligent enough to know it. End of.
Tuesday, 22 December 2009
Facing down trade union bullies
British Airways trolley dollies wanted to go on strike over the 12 days of Xmas. The Supreme Court decided the ballot had 'irregularities' and stopped it. So relief for passengers. I'm pleased for them, and delighted that the would-be strikers have been given a judicial caning. They think their pay isn’t good enough – even though they’re paid more than cabin crew on other airlines, by and large.
Well we’d all like job security and cushy numbers in this day and age, wouldn’t we? BA are fighting for their very survival, cutting costs wherever they can, just like the rest of the airline industry, and indeed like public and private companies all over the world. I work for a charity, and I’ve had a pay freeze (effectively a pay cut). Our pensions are about to be ‘reformed’, which no doubt means reduced. Do I go on strike? Do I hell. I get on with it because we’re in a worldwide recession and I’m lucky to have a job at all. Withholding my labour will have consequences for many disabled and vulnerable children that rely on our organisation. And there are also plenty of people who would do my job for a lot less money, and I well aware of it.
Watching the union UNITE doing their best to destroy their own industry would be hilarious for the irony if it wasn't for the fact that being unemployed is no better for society. Even people trying to commit suicide have the right to life. If you saw someone trying to jump off Beachy Head you'd try and stop them. Especially if they were going to leave their family destitute. But I suppose you can't stop some people.
Maybe UNITE think we’re still living in the 1970s when trade unions could shaft the public whenever they didn’t get what they wanted. So their plan was to inconvenience millions of people around the most important holiday of the year – when people want to see their children and families. Which would probably have been the death knell for BA as no-one would trust them again. The airline industry has never really recovered from 9/11; then we had a credit crunch and now we’re in a recession. The whole industry is on its knees. The arrogance of the unions is staggering.
I’m not against the right to strike. Everyone has the right to withhold their labour. Sometimes you may have to strike to protect yourself and your family. It’s enshrined in British law and (I think) international labour agreements. But this is not a health and safety issue or a protest against exploitation. It’s because cabin crew want better treatment. Don’t we all? I care more about the millions of passengers. Leaving them stranded to further the unions own pay is verging on the immoral.
For some unions, withholding labour has become a tool to brandish over any dispute of any kind, even when the consequences are totally self-defeating. It’s become the weapon of choice. The RMT in London Underground are a perfect example of this.
BA’s management quality seems to be poor. BA has been battered by the recession and by canny competitors like Virgin. It has a £3.7billion hole in its pensions. It is staring into oblivion, like many other famous carriers. We’re all finding it tough in a recession. When BA goes bust and the cabin crew are on the dole then just mayge they will have second thoughts.
BA still retains many of the characteristics of an old nationalised company, despite its private status. Its cabin staff are well paid compared to the industry average. They have nothing to complain about, they have it good. This could be the start of a return of union militancy, which does tend to rear its ugly head during hard economic times. The British economy is being kept afloat by cuts to the pay and benefits of private sector workers. Some public sector workers, by contrast, think they deserve some sort of special status. And of course they have their guaranteed pensions, which the rest of us have to fund. It’s high time to change that.
There are legions of unemployed who would jump at the chance to serve drinks on a plane and travel about the place getting drunk, or whatever. And they’d do it for less money. And they probably wouldn’t strike because they’d be glad they had a job in a recession. There are plenty of Polish girls who would join up I’m sure, and I’d prefer to fly with them anyway. They’re cuter.
Well we’d all like job security and cushy numbers in this day and age, wouldn’t we? BA are fighting for their very survival, cutting costs wherever they can, just like the rest of the airline industry, and indeed like public and private companies all over the world. I work for a charity, and I’ve had a pay freeze (effectively a pay cut). Our pensions are about to be ‘reformed’, which no doubt means reduced. Do I go on strike? Do I hell. I get on with it because we’re in a worldwide recession and I’m lucky to have a job at all. Withholding my labour will have consequences for many disabled and vulnerable children that rely on our organisation. And there are also plenty of people who would do my job for a lot less money, and I well aware of it.
Watching the union UNITE doing their best to destroy their own industry would be hilarious for the irony if it wasn't for the fact that being unemployed is no better for society. Even people trying to commit suicide have the right to life. If you saw someone trying to jump off Beachy Head you'd try and stop them. Especially if they were going to leave their family destitute. But I suppose you can't stop some people.
Maybe UNITE think we’re still living in the 1970s when trade unions could shaft the public whenever they didn’t get what they wanted. So their plan was to inconvenience millions of people around the most important holiday of the year – when people want to see their children and families. Which would probably have been the death knell for BA as no-one would trust them again. The airline industry has never really recovered from 9/11; then we had a credit crunch and now we’re in a recession. The whole industry is on its knees. The arrogance of the unions is staggering.
I’m not against the right to strike. Everyone has the right to withhold their labour. Sometimes you may have to strike to protect yourself and your family. It’s enshrined in British law and (I think) international labour agreements. But this is not a health and safety issue or a protest against exploitation. It’s because cabin crew want better treatment. Don’t we all? I care more about the millions of passengers. Leaving them stranded to further the unions own pay is verging on the immoral.
For some unions, withholding labour has become a tool to brandish over any dispute of any kind, even when the consequences are totally self-defeating. It’s become the weapon of choice. The RMT in London Underground are a perfect example of this.
BA’s management quality seems to be poor. BA has been battered by the recession and by canny competitors like Virgin. It has a £3.7billion hole in its pensions. It is staring into oblivion, like many other famous carriers. We’re all finding it tough in a recession. When BA goes bust and the cabin crew are on the dole then just mayge they will have second thoughts.
BA still retains many of the characteristics of an old nationalised company, despite its private status. Its cabin staff are well paid compared to the industry average. They have nothing to complain about, they have it good. This could be the start of a return of union militancy, which does tend to rear its ugly head during hard economic times. The British economy is being kept afloat by cuts to the pay and benefits of private sector workers. Some public sector workers, by contrast, think they deserve some sort of special status. And of course they have their guaranteed pensions, which the rest of us have to fund. It’s high time to change that.
There are legions of unemployed who would jump at the chance to serve drinks on a plane and travel about the place getting drunk, or whatever. And they’d do it for less money. And they probably wouldn’t strike because they’d be glad they had a job in a recession. There are plenty of Polish girls who would join up I’m sure, and I’d prefer to fly with them anyway. They’re cuter.
Tuesday, 15 December 2009
Sports Personality : Oxymoron
I didn’t watch the absurd ‘Sports Personality of the Year’ award, but I heard that Ryan Giggs won it. Baffling. What did he win it for, exactly?
Not his personality, surely. Sports personality seems like an oxymoron to me. Giggs seems like a fairly nice bloke, without the arrogance of many footballers, but how this sets him apart from all other sportsmen and women I don’t know.
What’s the award for, exactly? It’s obviously not for ‘personality’. Is it for achievement? Improvement? Consistency? Comebacks? A combination of all the above? If so a far more worthy winner would have been Beth Tweddle, the gymnast; or maybe Jenson Button; or David Haye. World champions all. The award is basically a popularity contest. Giggs isn’t even the best footballer in the UK at the moment. He could win an award for longevity and consistency, but the ‘BBC Consistency and Longevity in Sport Award’ doesn’t have the same ring about it.
It does reveal the stranglehold that football has on sport in this country though. And that sport is now more about ‘personalities’ (whatever that means, exactly) than sporting prowess.
Sporting prowess in itself is completely overrated. So what if someone can swing a golf club better than me, or bounce a ball into a hoop more accurately? So what? Sports are arbitrary. There are many sports that don’t make it into the Olympics, that don’t have professional leagues, and yet are no less ‘sports’ in their own right. They roll a large cheese down a hill in the West Country somewhere, and when I was at school we played ‘penny up the wall’. I bet there are urchins in north London and West Country bumpbkins who perform these sports better than Tiger Woods or Ryan Giggs ever would. So what is there to admire about Ryan Giggs, exactly? Just a few hundred years ago football was basically a cheese-rolling contest between mobs of howling villagers. No different. It just got lucky. Why is curling an Olympic sport but cheese-rolling not?
We can admire sporting prowess only as escapism. Forget what really matters in life and admire the dribbling skills Ryan Giggs or the boxing artistry of Floyd Mayweather Jr. Yes, I agree that it is aesthetically pleasing to many and we can admire the skill, technique and dedication it requires. I like watching a great footballer or a boxer in full flow. I’m looking forward to Pacquiao vs Mayweather, and the World Cup next year. But…. if you remember that someone just made up these sports when they were bored, and then made up the rules of these sports off the top of their heads then it becomes a little less impressive.
In the last 30 years sportsmen have become transmogrified into commercial entities and ‘role models’. It inevitably ends in disappointment for all. Sponsors have cottoned on to the relentless human need to be entertained and diverted. The Romans understood this, providing ‘panem et circenses’ for the masses. .Even politicians get in on the act. The public play along and live their lives vicariously through their teams or players, getting swept up in the hysteria and often defining and dividing themselves into tribes based on loyalties to ‘their’ teams.
The BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award is an absurdity that attempts to elevate what is objectively ridiculous to an artificial and arbitrary position of value. When I have watched these awards in the past it’s always struck me how the sportsmen all look faintly embarrassed as they sit there being told how good they are at swimming up and down or running round in circles or whatever. They know that although it might be important to them, for everyone else watching their endeavours are just escapism.
Not his personality, surely. Sports personality seems like an oxymoron to me. Giggs seems like a fairly nice bloke, without the arrogance of many footballers, but how this sets him apart from all other sportsmen and women I don’t know.
What’s the award for, exactly? It’s obviously not for ‘personality’. Is it for achievement? Improvement? Consistency? Comebacks? A combination of all the above? If so a far more worthy winner would have been Beth Tweddle, the gymnast; or maybe Jenson Button; or David Haye. World champions all. The award is basically a popularity contest. Giggs isn’t even the best footballer in the UK at the moment. He could win an award for longevity and consistency, but the ‘BBC Consistency and Longevity in Sport Award’ doesn’t have the same ring about it.
It does reveal the stranglehold that football has on sport in this country though. And that sport is now more about ‘personalities’ (whatever that means, exactly) than sporting prowess.
Sporting prowess in itself is completely overrated. So what if someone can swing a golf club better than me, or bounce a ball into a hoop more accurately? So what? Sports are arbitrary. There are many sports that don’t make it into the Olympics, that don’t have professional leagues, and yet are no less ‘sports’ in their own right. They roll a large cheese down a hill in the West Country somewhere, and when I was at school we played ‘penny up the wall’. I bet there are urchins in north London and West Country bumpbkins who perform these sports better than Tiger Woods or Ryan Giggs ever would. So what is there to admire about Ryan Giggs, exactly? Just a few hundred years ago football was basically a cheese-rolling contest between mobs of howling villagers. No different. It just got lucky. Why is curling an Olympic sport but cheese-rolling not?
We can admire sporting prowess only as escapism. Forget what really matters in life and admire the dribbling skills Ryan Giggs or the boxing artistry of Floyd Mayweather Jr. Yes, I agree that it is aesthetically pleasing to many and we can admire the skill, technique and dedication it requires. I like watching a great footballer or a boxer in full flow. I’m looking forward to Pacquiao vs Mayweather, and the World Cup next year. But…. if you remember that someone just made up these sports when they were bored, and then made up the rules of these sports off the top of their heads then it becomes a little less impressive.
In the last 30 years sportsmen have become transmogrified into commercial entities and ‘role models’. It inevitably ends in disappointment for all. Sponsors have cottoned on to the relentless human need to be entertained and diverted. The Romans understood this, providing ‘panem et circenses’ for the masses. .Even politicians get in on the act. The public play along and live their lives vicariously through their teams or players, getting swept up in the hysteria and often defining and dividing themselves into tribes based on loyalties to ‘their’ teams.
The BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award is an absurdity that attempts to elevate what is objectively ridiculous to an artificial and arbitrary position of value. When I have watched these awards in the past it’s always struck me how the sportsmen all look faintly embarrassed as they sit there being told how good they are at swimming up and down or running round in circles or whatever. They know that although it might be important to them, for everyone else watching their endeavours are just escapism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)