Expenses at our expense

May 12th, 2009

It’s been fascinating to see what some MPs have been claiming for. Chandeliers, horse manure, dog food, lawn mowers, barbecues, light bulbs and so many ‘flipping’ second homes that we lose count.

MPs need to be reimbursed for the inevitable cost of working in two places – their constituencies and the House of Commons. But the present system is broken and needs to be replaced.  There are really only two options here – one is to have a fixed allowance for a second home and that can be spent on a mortgage, rent, hotel room or whatever, and the other is to have (as the armed forces do) set accomodation that they can live in at no cost.

One of the most amazing things in this whole fiasco is that MPs seem to think that no-one would find out. In this age of citizen media those who are paid by the public must expect it. And Speaker Martin was entirely blinkered in seeking to castigate whoever spilled the beans, rather than those whose dubious actions meant the beans were worth spilling.

Many of our MPs seem to need clear and strategic PR advice, the one thing, ironically, that they haven’t bothered to claim for.

MPs expenses

May 8th, 2009

Members of Parliament have an important role in society. They are, in fact, the very guardians of society. They have been elected to look after our interests in respect of our laws, our borders, our relationships with other countries, our compassion for less well off members of our communities, our defence, our economic well-being and countless other tasks.

Much of this they do diligently. We trust them to make important decisions of our behalf, and we pay them quite well for their time. We also recognise that the job can mean having to have a second home in order that they can do their jobs in Westminster as well as their jobs in their constituencies. It is fair and just that additional expenses incurred in having to have a second home should be recompensed.

But as we have put MPs in a position of trust to look after our interests, they must also recognise that we have an interest in making sure that their claims are fair and just. No one wants our MPs to be out of pocket; neither do we want them to take us for a ride.

The current row over expenses does no political party credit. The Cabinet might be under scrutiny at the moment, but abuses have gone on for years and no party has raised its head above the parapet and said these abuses must stop.

There seems to be a culture in Westminster of ‘it’s within the rules so it’s OK’. But we elect them to make rules for us – and for themselves. If we cannot trust them to make and police their own rules, can we really trust them with ours?

When Commons committees questions others about morals, actions, decisions and policies, do they forget that there are clouds hanging over their own morals, actions, decisions and policies?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who guards the guardians? That phrase was coined by the Roman poet Juvenal getting on for 1800 years ago. He was writing about enforcing morals on women, and since then it has been used to describe dictatorships and other forms of bad government.

It also seems to apply to the House of Commons in 2009.

Let’s get swine flu in perspective

April 30th, 2009

The media – print, broadcast and social – is full of swine flu news. It’s also full of speculation, warnings, fear and hype.

Let’s get this in perspective. It’s very sad that so many have died in Mexico, but the figures are really very small. I am highly unlikely to die from swine flu. You are highly unlikely to die from swine flu.

Every year people do die from influenza. It is a serious disease, and we are going to get a serious new strain before too long. When it happens many will die, but probably not as many as Spanish flu around 90 years ago, when somewhere between 20 and 100 million died.

If we want to talk about deaths in 2009 let’s focus on much more serious matters. Many die every day from wars around the world. We could do something about these, if we had the will.

Every day, yes every day, around 16,000 children die from hunger-related causes. That’s 16,000 every day, almost 700 every hour, 11 every minute.

So in the time you have taken to read this another 5 or 6 children have died. We could do something about this.

For those families with children dying from hunger, for those in war zones, with bullets, landmines, cholera and other issues to concern them, swine flu is something of a trivial matter.

So let’s keep things in perspective. And let’s worry about wars, child deaths, global warming and those other things that swine flu have pushed out of our minds. We can keep flu at bay by washing our hands. Let’s not wash our hands of these other important matters.

In praise of absurdity

April 24th, 2009

If the world is to escape quickly from this economic downturn then we need to be enterprising. To be enterprising we need to start thinking ridiculous thoughts, because to be enterprising we need to think about the future, and we can learn a good lesson from Albert Einstein who said: “If an idea is not at first absurd, then there is no hope for it.”

Not all new ideas mean old ways are forgotten.  We still read books and newspapers; we still ride bicycles; radio and TV are going strong even though social media means everyone can broadcast.  But new ideas are out there and we need to grab them.

Thirty years ago computers were rare in many businesses. Now most businesses could not operate without them. Changes – big changes – usually come about via three routes – from war, from natural disaster or from disruptive technologies. We need our young people – those in universities, in colleges, in schools, at home in front of their computers – to dream of these as yet unheard of disruptive technologies.

This is where our future prosperity lies. It’s easy to keep looking backwards and to celebrate what happened in the past. We need to anticipate the future with enthusiasm and grasp the opportunities that lie there.

It’s very easy to think of mad scientists, crackpot inventors and possibly frightening technologies. But we have an expanding global population, a huge global financial crisis and we have increasing competition in trade and business from all corners of the world. We need more crackpots and mad scientists and outrageous thinkers.

Attitudes change. Nuclear power was not acceptable a decade ago. Now most people accept it has to play a part in the energy mix, along with renewable energy sources.

Genetically modified crops must be carefully managed, but they may also offer a way of feeding our expanding world population. It’s easy to be against such things when you are not starving in Somalia or Eritrea.

And nanotechnology is also here and here to stay, despite the worries of Prince Charles. 

We dream of robots to serve us, but they already are. We don’t have a single robots to do our bidding but hundreds of them hidden away at work, at home and in our cars that do all manner of jobs for us.
But here again we are looking backwards. We need to gaze into the crystal ball and dream. Bring on enterprise. Bring on the absurd ideas.

Care and injustice

April 17th, 2009

The Nursing and Midwifery Council should be ashamed of itself. Its decision, to ban Maragaret Haywood from ever being allowed to practise nursing again, is misguided and is a disgrace.

For those who don’t know, Margaret Haywood was so appalled by the neglect of elderly patients at the Royal Sussex Hospital where she worked that she agreed to secretly film conditions for a BBC Panorama documentary. Her decision was not taken lightly. She had reported the issues to her superiors but nothing had been done.

The programme highlighted dreadful instances of neglect. Before the programme was shown everyone who had been filmed had either given their permission for it to be shown or their relatives had done so where the patient had since died.

However the Nursing and Midwifery Council said to undertake the filming was a major breach of its code of conduct and compromised the dignity of elderly patients in the last stages of their lives. Someone needs to tell the council that it was the neglect that compromised their dignity, not the exposure of it.

Margaret Haywood has been in nursing for 20 years and would not have taken such drastic action if the authorities had done their jobs properly. If the Council believes that it is more important to protect the interest of the nursing profession than to uncover and highlight such conditions, then it is not a fit body to rule upon these matters.

A fish by any other name…

April 8th, 2009

Sainsbury’s seems to think that pollack is not a fish its customers want to ask for. It appears they think that the name is just a little too close to something slightly suggestive.

Their solution is to rebrand it as colin, pronounced in the French way. Now apart from the fact that colin in France is hake, do they really think that this is going to make the fish so much more popular? And aren’t most people going to say Colin, as in the boy’s name, and isn’t that just as odd.

This appears to be a strategy to deal with a very silly and insignificant problem, by substituting a name which is not that easy to pronounce and one which is incorrect at that.

Name changing doesn’t hide the problem. Windscale became Sellafield but it still had nuclear leaks. And isn’t pollack, or colin, the rather tasteless fish that is mostly used in school fishcakes and which has put a generation of children off fish for life?

Seems to me that Sainsbury’s have started something they probably wish they hadn’t. A real load of bolins…

Sum mistake?

March 20th, 2009

When you lose your job it’s a good idea to think about going in a different direction, especially when the Government encourages you to do so.
With so many top bankers suddenly finding themselves with time on their hands the Government has suggested they could go into our schools to teach mathematics. Maths teachers are sorely needed – but bankers?
Isn’t it apparent to everyone that most bankers haven’t been able to do their sums properly for years?

Open mouth – insert foot

February 26th, 2009

Carol Thatcher, the Iron Lady’s daughter, has been in the news because of a remark she made following a BBC programme she had been appearing on. I’m not going to comment on what she said, or on the subsequent actions of the BBC, or the heated debate it has provoked in the pro and anti camps.
What I do want to comment on is something which is an important lesson for anyone in business, in public life, or in general. There is no such thing as a private conversation.
If Carol Thatcher thought it was safe to say something in a ‘private meeting’ as opposed to on air, she is very much mistaken. In these days of instant communications nothing can stay private or confidential for very long.
Most people will remember Gerald Ratner’s speech to the Institute of Directors in 1991. He thought that was a ‘private function’ which would not be reported, and so felt safe in making his infamous ‘jokes’.  Among them: “We also do cut-glass sherry decanters complete with six glasses on a silver-plated tray that your butler can serve you drinks on, all for £4.95. People say, “How can you sell this for such a low price?” I say, because it’s total crap.”
He compounded this by going on to remark that some of the earrings were “cheaper than an M and S prawn sandwich but probably wouldn’t last as long.”
The reporting of his comment led, very quickly, to the demise of his company, and demonstrated very clearly the value of branding and image over quality – and how that can be easily destroyed by a careless remark.
You don’t need a journalist hidden somewhere to send such a statement out into the wide world. Many people carry mobile phones which can record sound, take pictures and email the results. Social networking and mini-blogging sites are powerful vehicles for getting information into the wider community.
The recent plane landing on the River Hudson was photographed on a phone and was posted on the mini-blogging site Twitter within minutes.
We live in an instant world of instant communications which can lead to instant fame or infamy.
So some useful business rules to remember are:
• There is no such thing as a private meeting
• Never put in writing something which you do not wish to be published somewhere, somehow.
• Never hit the “reply to all” button on an email unless you have checked who is included in ‘all’
In addition every employee in your business should be trained, not just to communicate well, but to understand the impact of poor, inaccurate, or just plain old careless communications. You know it makes sense.

Apostrophe crime

October 16th, 2008

They’re everywhere – these criminals with a wanton disregard for the rest of us, undermining standards, setting a bad example and generally ruining a once proud nation. How can we hold our heads up high, even in the knowledge that we finished above Australia in the Olympic medals table, or that we are going to stage the greatest sporting event on earth in 2012, while this sort of thing carries on?
It’s got to stop. We must join together and take a stand. We have to stamp out apostrophe crime.
It used to be known as the greengrocers’ apostrophe. You would see Apple’s  or Cabbage’s when it should be Apples or Cabbages. Nowadays this glaring error is not confined to greengrocers, oh no. We have the garages’ apostrophe, the supermarkets’ apostrophe, the practically any trader’s or company’s apostrophe.
The rules for apostrophes are clear and simple. They are used to denote missing letters, such as I mustn’t instead of I must not, or it’s instead of it is; they are used to denote possession, such as the Chamber’s policy or the writer’s pen or the directors’ meeting,
They are never, ever – not even in your wildest dreams – used to denote plurals. So we don’t have “MOT’s carried out here”, or “100’s of CD’s in stock”, or “Free magazine’s at reception”.
It is time for the great British public to rise up and demand that apostrophe criminals change their ways. Perhaps we could give them ASBOs (Apostrophe Standard Breaching Orders) or maybe give them 1000 lines (I must not misuse apostrophes for example by writing I must not misuse apostrophe’s) for every offence.
OK – so this is a bit of a rant, but there is a serious point here. We are always hearing about businesses bemoaning the inability of school leavers to cope with basic Maths or English. But who are employers to say such things when so many of them – and there are big companies which are in the apostrophe criminal classes – get such a simple rule of English wrong?
Now I am not against the English language evolving; it always has and always will. But we cannot throw grammar and spelling out of the window or down the drain just because we cannot be bothered to avoid mistakes.
So let’s name and shame the apostrophe criminals. Send your examples of apostrophe crime us at pr dogs and let’s (missing letter) get our readers’ (plural possessive) backing for this agency’s (single possessive) campaign!

Dear bankers…

October 12th, 2008

I write this open letter to you all while reflecting on the many thousands (or probably millions) of letters that you all have sent to us individuals, businesses and organisations over the years.

In these letters you have castigated us for spending more than we actually have; you have chastised us for living beyond our means; you have criticised us for being unwise and over-ambitious; you have chided us for not being prudent.
And now what do we find? You have been far from prudent; you have been unwise and over ambitious; you have been spending more than you have, in other words living beyond your means.

So we now find ourselves in the position, somewhat reluctantly, of being shareholders as well as customers while we try to help you out of the mess you have created.

What is curious to many of us is how your views have see-sawed so quickly. From being people who would lend to anyone at a bus stop, you won’t even lend to each other. This attitude is making the global situation worse. You all knew you were all, quite frankly, dodgy players before. Now we all know you are, you are pretending to be careful. That just means that as well as having to bail youy out, we are taking the hit in terms of a credit squeeze.

I come now to executive pay and bonuses. We are often told that pay for top executives such as you has to be competitive. It seems to many of us that most of you are not competent to run a whelk stall. If you actions plunge us all into recession there will be plenty of top executives around with nothing to do, so we suggest you look at your positions very carefully. We do not expect to see bonuses until we have been repaid, and we look to your remuneration committees to do the decent thing and slash your remuneration. If you want to go elsewhere as a result – good riddance.

I do hope you take these comments to heart. I will finish in a way that I believe is appropriate in view of our new relationship.

Your remain, sirs, my humble and obedient servants,

PS I believe it is customary in your profession to charge a fee of around £40 for writing such a letter as this. I look forward to your payments.

PPS In view of your current financial positions you should not draw further on your accounts, so cash, please.