I took a couple of pictures as I passed my favourite London statue last week, thought worth posting here. It’s a fairly new installation at the entrance to Liverpool Street station.

Liverpool Street Kindertransport

The statue of course represents a terrible event in 20th century history, but what I like about it is it’s human scale.  It’s not a overscale affair mounted high on a plinth, it’s at ground level situated in a major pedestiran thoroughfare. If you drove past it chances are you’d miss  it. Many London statues commemerate military escapades or former imperial dominance, this however represents ordinary people.  This statue commemorates the children who were sent to England in order to escape flee persecution,  and perhaps death. They escaped the fate dealt out to the likes of  Ann Frank. They children portray a look of thankfullness and wonder, tinged with a little fear of the unknown, this makes the piece for me.  On a nearby wall is the following plaque:

People often sit around the bottom of the statue and quite disrepectufully leave their litter on it. Evidenced by the McDonalds bag seen here.  Children also clamber on it, a good thing, which probably leads parents to tell them something about it’s meaning.

For me it’s a piece of public art that really works because you can relate to, and have empathy for,  the figures depicted. No matter who you are, or where you’re from.

More info about the Kindertransport can be read HERE.

It was probably inevitable that Cadbury would be taken over, the vultures had been circling for months, it was just a matter of time. What a great shame though. I’ve mentioned the story before on here, but now the deal is done it’s worth thinking about the implications for a moment. A company with a long and laudable history of social justice gets consumed by a company with no such claim. In many ways this takeover personifies the identities of the two countries involved. The UK has a market driven economy and a history of enterprising individuals creating successful business. Often they have also had a great sense of social justice and acted to improve the lives of the poorly paid workers on whose toil  profits are made. People such a George Cadbury fit this mould. In addition, the social welfare net in the UK acts to protect the exploitation of workers by making sure they can at least feed themselves and get access to free  healthcare.

By contrast large US businesses such as Kraft, who employ just under 100,000 people worldwide, grew up in a world with far fewer employee rights and virtually no social welfare net to protect people against poor health and hardship. Freed from this responsibility companies in the Kraft mould have grown bigger and faster than Cadbury, for them it’s all about the bottom line, profit in monetary terms. So in the global marketplace the Cadbury aquisition makes sense for Kraft, and even more sense considering they were apparently expecting to pay over £10 a share before the recession hit, now they’ve picked it up for only £8,40. Kraft get an iconic brand and more importantly a quality product; I’ve tried many American chocolate bars, all are dissapointing,  and in some cases I’ve cut out the middleman thrown it straight in the bin after the first bite.

Why did the Cadbury shareholders  fold so early in the game and accept defeat? It seems largely because many of them were American investors, with the biggest one being Californian Investment Managers Franklin Templeton.  So the decision to conceed Cadbury to a US multinational was largely in the hands of US asset managers, not British shareholders with perhaps more than a financial attachment to Cadbury.

These are the rules of the game though.  With protectionism frowned upon by those who regulate trade and investment (again mostly from the US) the big fish are free to eat the little fish at will. This means that the UK, down the pecking order nowadays  in the scheme of things, could end up having no successful home-grown, home-owned large enterprise at all. Why is this a bad thing? Because profits made here will go back to bank accounts in the home country, because industrial relations (or lack of) will be framed by what happens in the home country, and because ‘downsizing’ if needed will happen in the home country last. It’s far easier for a US company to weather UK job losses than those in its own back yard.

In the global oder of things the aquistion of Cadbury sends a clear message; everything is up for grabs. No matter where, how big, or how long established, every business is purchasable if you have deep enough pockets. The fact that you live half a world away and care not for the heritage, history or ethos of a business matters not.

A sad state of affairs for Cadbury employees, Cadbury lovers, and ‘UK PLC’ overall. The same globalisation that brought us a £5 pair of jeans, also brings us subservience to foreign multinationals. Ultimately, ‘UK PLC’ could become just another franchise operation, owned and operated by fat cats in the USA. A country which itself has one of the highest levels of inequality in the world.

I’m off to buy some Creme Eggs before they get smaller, or less tasty!

The cold spell we’ve had in the last couple couple of weeks seems to have caught those in charge of the countries transport infrastructure by surprise.  Preparations clearly hadn’t been made properly, and a plan for dealing with some reasonably heavy snow and ice seemed to be largely absent in many areas. The media went into overdrive of course, delivering us political finger pointing for the lack of preparedness, and delivering  some beautiful images of the country under a pristine blanket of pure white. I took a few snaps outside the front door on a particularly cold morning and they can be seen here. Last year the country almost stopped after heavy snow, just as it did this year, if it happens again next year I’m sure we can expect the same. Actually I think we can expect worse,  the cuts in spending that won’t come until after the election are bound to include cuts to the money local authorites have at their disposal, about a year from now they’ll be really kicking in. Putting public services out to the cheapest tender  inevitably leads to service contracts that don’t include handling too much out of the ordinary, extreme weather seems a distant and unlikely prospect,  so it’s cheaper not worry about it.

But enough of that, what of the beauty! Instead of fretting about not getting from A to B I allowed myself to soak up the beautiful landscapes that the snow brought to us. The town and countryside looked wonderful, and what sheer fun was to be had by sledgers and snowman builders alike. Driving became exciting again, requiring upmost attention and timely application of the handbrake in that car park full of virgin snow.

A leaf encased in ice.

It’s easy to forget the natural beauty such weather brings, and instead stress about the disruption it causes. But it’s worth taking a moment to appreciate this visual feast, before it melts away.  So here I post just a few pictures, which come the balmy days of summer, will remind me of a cold chill, wet feet, and those magnificent landscapes.

Stanborough Lakes frozen!

Christmas is great;  friends and family, food, TV, and of course presents. Some things about Christmas are a given.  Noel Edmonds will appear in a hideous jumper, doing something charitable with kids. The Queen will give us the briefest glimpse into her life and thoughts this year. While we  all listen for subtexts that reveal she might be thinking  about throwing in the crown sometime soon. TV Christmas specials will also abound, some hitting and some missing the spot. For my money Caroline Ahern won the TV day with the Royale Family. Class, not even working working class, but class for sure.

What I find less savoury than a cheese straw though is the encroachment on our two days off by the major shops.  As the years go by more and more of them are opening their doors on Boxing day. This unsavoury creep of opening hours is bad news for shop workers, and their families. Can we not have two consecutive days in the year when the shops are shut? Where shop workers, often poorly paid, can spend time with those who matter, rather than those for whom they toil?

Historically Boxing Day was when employees would give their employers gifts (in boxes of course) as a thank you for employing them through the year. This would seem very odd to us, but i’m sure the employers of old would have thought making their staff work on Boxing Day equally odd, not to say mean-spirited.

Supermarkets do not need to open on Boxing day,  and we don’t don’t to worship at the temple of the well stocked isle on Boxing Day. Of course the sad truth is that supermarkets know from experience that if they open people will come, whatever the day.  So in the desperate race for ever bigger profits, most now open on the 26th of December. Thousands of workers are denied a proper Christmas break by decree of supermarket bosses, who’ll say they  “have a duty to the board to maximise profits” – Change the record!

I refuse on principal to set foot inside a supermarket on Boxing Day, we all need a work/life balance, including shopworkers. Some will of course be happy to work that day for various reasons, but many are not. I overheard checkout operators in two supermarkets saying so this week.

How many years before one of them, probably Tesco, tries to open on Christmas day?

So my Boxing Day message is ‘Don’t go there!‘

Stay away from supermarkets if you can, let the poorly paid, often highly pressured, shop staff have a Christmas break too!

Seems a long time since my last post, real  life just gets in the way sometimes!

I read with interest the noises off from the leader of the opposition this week concerning our burgeoning Health & Safety culture, and parallel embrace of an American style litigation culture. His comments are summarised nicely in this BBC article  I have to say that I broadly agree with him on this. Apparently the examples given in the piece about goggle wearing conker kids, and hairdressers being kept away from point things did not stand up to scrutiny – but the sentiment remains true.

As a society we have undoubtedly become risk averse over the last 10 years. Fear of some kind of accident or crime happening sits high in peoples minds, in reality we are at no more risk than in the past, so what’s changed?

I’d say a large part of it goes back to the decision to fundamentally change the rules on Legal Aid. From 2000 most personal injury cases could no longer be funded by Legal Aid. This would save the exchequer a huge amount of money of course. To uphold people rights to legal representation though the concept of “No win, no fee” was introduced.  This of course led to the US style ambulance chasing that Mr Cameron refers to. A potential cash bonanza for legal services firms looking for new markets. They know all to well that public services like the NHS, or local councils, are soft targets for inflated personal injury claims. They pursue drumming up potential claims against them with vigour.

To do this they need to sniff out potential claimants, but how?  Why not saturate daytime TV with promises of huge payouts for anyone who might be prepared to embellish the truth a little. They also cold call. A week or two ago I had a call to my mobile out of the blue “Have I ever had an accident?” said the accented voice from the call centre.”No” I replied. “Do I know anyone who has had one in the last three years” he continued. “No” I replied and ended the call. The desperation of it though…employers and public bodies must be getting hit all day long with spurious injury claims that originated from such calls. The CAB also think the current set-up is broken, see their comments here.

Of course many claims will be genuine, but a lot are not. One casualty appears to be school trips, even when they do occur I notice every child now wears a Hi-Vis jacket. A school trip in London I saw last week looked like a gang of mini-me construction workers on their way to build Toyland! Whether it’s telling us that a bag of nuts may contain nuts, or that actually letting your child walk to school is unsafe, or that all trees must be annually inspected and chopped down if not deemed 100% safe to passers by, Health and Safety is putting the blockers on all kinds of activities. Making some people richer, and many peoples lives a lot duller in the process.

I agree  with David Cameron (surprisingly!) things may not be as bad as he says, but they are heading that way.  However I see a problem, the oft heard opposition mantra of late is that “small government is better, because it’s cheaper, and that the market should provide services, not the state”.  That would tend to rule out any notion of legal aid being brought back in to moderate the excesses of personal injury claims.

So if not legal aid, and not unfettered ambulance chasers, then what? Any ideas?

Much has been written about the self induced financial implosion of the last year or so. About a year ago we were starting to see politicians and academics start to call for root and branch change to the way global financial affairs are managed. And, for government interventions which strengthen the regulatory framework that business and banking must operate within. The plans afoot to clamp down on tax avoidance are an example of that, although they will probably end up being weak and unenforceable.

But all that talk a year ago, about how ‘just perhaps’ unfettered neo-liberalism and small ‘hands-off’ government should not be the only game in town has quickly evaporated, it seems. Already we have powerful players defending the old regime, again claiming that “greed is good” and the mantra to live by. Why would they do that?

Its all about power, ego, and becoming the uber alpha-male (it is invariably men who run the world). A banker, or anybody else, who earned $10 million or equivilent last year, will want to earn 15 or 20 million this year. That’s how it works, they will make whatever decisions they have to in order to ensure their own material worth exponentially increases. The more money they have, the more they can manipulate political and financial systems, and the more they can attain their desired outcomes. Once up in that financial stratosphere, the sky is not the limit.

Ethics, morals, or social responsibility do not compute. This is pure game theory, with a handful of winners intent on taking all, at the expense of the vast majority of the rest of us.

This week I noticed three quotes which seem to confirm the above proposition. It is a widely accepted fact that since the 1980’s inequality has sharply risen. Today the gap between the haves and have-nots is a gaping chasm, more than at any time in human history. OECD statistics bear this out as do many others, see for yourself.

The quotes I refer to are those from:

Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, a Conservative peer, former special advisor to Margaret Thatcher, and former vice chairman of Goldman Sachs, amongst other things, said this week:

“We have to accept that inequality is a way of achieving greater opportunity and prosperity for all.”

That quote can be read in context here. He’s clearly in denial of the evidence, widely accepted, that inequality is not good for all. Power and self-interest are perhaps clouding his judgement here. So much power in fact that I’m even wary of exercising my right to free speech here by suggesting such.

My second quote of the week is this from Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England:

“To paraphrase a great wartime leader, never in the field of financial endeavour has so much money been owed by so few to so many. And, one might add, so far with little real reform”. - see the quote here.

This sideswipe at the banks was made in light of their planned £6 billion bonus handout next January. Their unified repost is of course that if one government tries to put the squeeze on them, they’ll just move their jobs, cash, and tax revenues to somewhere with fewer moral scruples. You could see that as economic blackmail… and you’d be right. Good on Mervyn King for saying it, words mean little without actions though.

My last quote of the week comes from Prince Andrew:

“I don’t want to demonise the banking and financial sector. Bonuses, in the scheme of things, are minute. They are easy to target.” - read the quote here.

Ignoring the fact that a member of the royal family is the last person to be commenting on excess in anything, his idea of minute amounts of money, and the one the rest of us have must be galaxies apart. This is the man who allegedly cost the taxpayer £140,000 in hotel bills and food last year. Expenses incurred whilst trying to convince foreign dignitaries and businessmen that egalitarian and meritocratic Britain is a great country to do business with. I see quite an irony in that, considering his own background, but more importantly who is he to judge what constitutes minute?

In summary then, we seem to be witnessing a return to business as usual in terms of the way the economic world operates. This then will continue to have dire social consequences for the majority, especially in the developing world. Those holding the reigns of power seem to be successfully over-riding the backlash against them brought about by the credit crunch. These have’s are often megalomaniacs, who just have to have more, at whatever cost. It’s all about them, in their view. Huge disproportionate and undeserved bonuses are testament to that. There is a movement for change though, think tanks and academics of the political economy are pushing for it. It’s not just the preserve of new-age hippies and tree-huggers, as some would have you believe.

It’s only those who cannot comprehend a world where they don’t get exponentially richer year on year, that are standing in the way. Eventually they may change their modus operandi. If an enlightened and socially just way of seeing the world can become embedded in the psyche of not only the common man, but the uber-rich man too.

Finally, a short video clip about inequality from the OECD can be viewed HERE.