The Gagging Law - still confused

So 38degrees asked me to fill in a survey, having lost the campaign to stop the component of the Lobbying Bill that will stop organisations like 38degrees campaigning on 'political' issues during the 12 months before an election.  (The vague wording here reflects my uncertainty on the detail, hence the suggestions below.)

Here's some of their questions and my answers:

What other ideas do you have for how we should handle the law?
There are a lot of simple statements, accusations and government-bashing going around.  It would be helpful to have a simple factual summary of precisely how the law restricts the normal 38degrees' activity

How would you describe to another 38 Degrees member why it’s worth carrying on campaigning?
The vote in the Lords was in effect a tie.  Therefore in principle nothing was decided, so nothing should change until it is re-examined.

Any other comments?
Presumably a number of Liberal Democrats voted for this, and yet by all accounts it is neither liberal nor democratic - could we get a LibDem MP and a Lord to explain to us precisely why they voted for it.  If we understand the other view we can spot and exploit weaknesses.

Endorphins for the mature citizen

Good news - I have discovered a couple of 'natural highs' for the older person.

As a younger man, I used to go running irregularly on some slightly spurious grounds of 'keeping fit'.  I was never really fit, and getting fit (for a non-athlete) takes a year of focused effort rather than a few weeks ... but that, as they say, is another blog.

The point is that I used to feel the 'runner's high' generally thought to be caused by endorphins - the natural narcotics in my body, triggered by the physical exercise.

Now that I'm a mature citizen (and no, I don't mean senior!), I have given up the running - I think it's too risky for my knees and ankles which, unlike hips these days, are still nasty, painful and difficult things to repair.

Instead I go walking ... and I don't mean strolling, and not quite speed walking, but certainly fast enough to get my heart-rate up and encourage me to focus on posture.  I do a 2-mile walk around Greenwich Park most mornings, and now I've been doing that for a couple of years I feel that my body (I suppose really my brain) is looking forward to it. When I can't or don't do it, I definitely feel a sense of missing something.  I may not be getting a 'walker's high' in the same way a runner does, yet there's definitely a positive feedback loop going on, and perhaps some modest endorphin production.

There's a another non-physical 'rush' I have recently identified, which is the main trigger for this blog.  When I start reading a book, fiction or non-fiction, that is absorbing, stretching, challenging, and well-written ... I feel a wave of pleasure, excitement and anticipation flow through my head.  After I put it down and continue with (get back to) work or whatever higher priority task is at hand, I can feel the book calling to me ... just as Greenwich Park does on a day when I have not walked.

The particular book that gave rise to the above is God's Debris by Scott Adams (he of Dilbert fame), and the particular rush was enhanced by stumbling across it this morning on my hard drive (it's an ebook) - I apparently downloaded it in 2006 and never got round to 'opening' it - ah those far-off days with no time to read.  It was further enhanced by the ridiculous coincidence that only yesterday I put the latest Scott Adams book onto my Amazon wishlist!  It kind-of feels the same as the 'feel-good' from physical exercise, with the added benefit that I can keep doing it for longer.

Yes, yes - I know this is my reserved time for working on my own book.  In my defence I was looking on my PC for some old notes to incorporate into my seminal work - not that I'm short of content you understand, more to show the consistency and intellectual growth of my thinking (!).  In my further defence, if I didn't take 15 minutes to write this now, it would go onto a list somewhere if it's lucky, only to fall off that list or randomly re-appear in 5 years' time ... and the world would be deprived of this content.

Self-discipline versus a wandering mind and many topics

The self-discipline explains the lack of blogging recently; I have promised myself more focus on the book I'm writing, fixed hours in the day, content targets, and less time getting distracted (interested ... puzzled ... outraged) by current affairs, science, history and anything else that wonders across my vision.

I am fond of saying that "I know a bit about quite a few things, and I have an opinion on everything";  this works well as an ice-breaker in a group of people, whether work or social.  I believe it's true, and I could spend all week blogging about topics I see in just the Saturday Guardian.  Self-discipline is hard!

I watched Professor Brian Cox recently giving a lecture on space & time - yes, it was the Science of Doctor Who, but this was proper grown-up stuff presented in a virtuosic manner.  I used to think Brian Cox was annoying but this lecture won me over.  Since then I have been thinking a lot about past and future light cones and the whole physical structure of the universe ... I haven't quite finished yet, so look out for a blog in, say, 2026.  And you still believe the bit about improved self-discipline?

My name is Nic Vine, and I find (almost) everything interesting and worthy of analysis.

Nevertheless, that one weird old tip (to use a current online vernacular) of assigning certain hours of the day as not just "writing is priority" but actually "writing is all I do" does work.  It's obvious really.  I don't know why I took so long to adopt it.  So the book will be finished in 2014, and no I'll not be tied down any further because I want it to be fun, not a millstone.

O2/Sky broadband saga resolution

So finally the saga is over - the line is fixed and I have been credited a month's charge, a whole £20, and they have promised to take up the communication/management failure between O2 and BT OpenReach.

Taking up from the last blog, then.  The engineers did arrive on 23rd as promised - a he and a she, where it appeared the she was being supervised.  She knew what she was doing, and he was checking.  Everything was alright in the house (of course), and they went off to the Exchange, leaving the pole to later if all else failed.  They could do this because he was 'frame trained' and therefore allowed into the Exchange.  They were back very promptly, it took 5 minutes to find my connection in the frame and remove a strand of wire that had fallen over it causing a short.

Aaaagh - this could have been done a week before if OpenReach had checked the Exchange then as their engineer (not frame trained) requested.  

The engineers were good enough to hang around while I checked that I had a good internet connection, even though their responsibility ends at the test socket in the wall box.  Good service from them.

So I called 800 230 0202 again, told them it was fixed, reinforced the point that we had lost a week for no good reason, and reminded them that they had promised to give me one month's credit.  The young lady in Derry said she'd do that right away.  Oh then later in the day I got another of those emails and texts telling me they are still working on our fault - this was after the text that said the fault should be fixed now - fills you with confidence, doesn't it.

I decided to wait a few days, not least to ensure the broadband was stable, before chasing the credit and entering my complaint about the whole saga.  Frankly it was a relief to not think about O2 for a few days.

Then blow me on 29 Oct we are notified of the next bill and there is no credit applied at all.  Time to immediately write a lengthy letter of complaint to complaintreviewservice@o2.com laying out the whole dreadful saga.  They have a 7-day response commitment, so I duly noted it in my calendar for chasing.

Much to my surprise today, 01 Nov, I get a call from the complaintreviewservice which is apologetic, appears to genuinely understand my frustrations and the fact that errors must have been made between O2 and OpenReach, and immediately applies a £20 credit to my account (which I can see online, otherwise I wouldn't be writing this).

So will I still carry out my threat to remove broadband, home phone, mobile broadband and two mobiles from O2?  We'll all just have to wait and see ...

Broken O2/Sky broadband and poor change management

This is a personal outpouring which nevertheless plays into my professional position as a change strategist.

Over the last 5 years my wife and I have moved to O2 for all our comms: 2 mobile phones, home phone+broadband, and mobile broadband for when we're sailing. You might say that's risky – eggs & basket – however we thought the risk was outweighed by convenience (and discounts) of one supplier, given our perception of the high quality of the O2 brand.

Until 10 days ago the service was great … well, in the sense that we rarely needed service. The occasional call on 202 or visit to an O2 shop went pretty smoothly. One problem using the mobile broadband dongle was resolved through an online chat with a Guru. The broadband in particular just worked – never needed to touch the router, wi-fi the same.

12 days ago on 9 Oct the phone and broadband just went dead. Called 800 230 0202 late in the day and they initiated a 2-hour line test straight away. Next morning it was all working again, so I called and told them this, and off we went. That seemed like good service.

The next day broadband was very slow and got worse until on 13 Oct the broadband and phone were dead again. This is where we entered the madness, and I'll spare you the blow-by-blow. Suffice to say that O2 kept saying they would call back with test results or next action and they almost never did – it was usually me calling them. The only thing in their favour is that they always answer the phone on the first ring, and the calls are free. Other factors in the frustration:

• their telephone equipment is awful because you get huge background noise and distortion, which combined with strong Derry accents makes it hard to understand them
• the number they had in the database to call us on was the home phone which is broken - duh
• an engineer wasn't booked because of some problem on their system
• I have never managed to speak to 'second level' who I believe interface with BT OpenReach, I can only get the call centre who have limited information and influence

An Openreach engineer finally came on 16 Oct, checked everything ok at the house, definitely a line problem somewhere, put in a call for someone to check the Exchange, promised he'd call me with an update … and that was the last I heard of any of that.

On 18 Oct a manager at the call centre said he'd get Level 2 to call me that day to discuss status (after putting my mobile into their database) – never happened.

On 20 Oct I spoke to another manager at the call centre, having been notified of an engineer booking for 23^rd – I expressed my frustration and anger at some length, he sympathised and agreed I was not being unreasonable, I said if it is not fixed by 21^st then I will be going onto social media with this, he said there's nothing he could do to get an engineer earlier. The only offer I got was that he said he'd cancel November's charges as compensation.

Now it's the 22^nd and I'm expecting an engineer tomorrow morning. No pressure, but by golly he or she had better deliver.

The wider background to this, of O2 selling their broadband service to Sky, is where the change strategy comes in.** The irony is that I have just written a general blog about KIS n Tell change management, which means Keeping It Simple and communicating it well. Unfortunately O2 and Sky have failed on this, quite dramatically in my view. In the past few months I have received letters and emails advising me of the sale and reassuring me that the deals will be at least as good under Sky (so I'll still get the discount with Sky for having an O2 mobile, will I? Fantastic), and that the transition will happen by April 2014, with 2 months notice.  The main thing I want is no interruption to service, as well as no cost increase of course.

Not far into the madness summarised above it occurred to me that the transition may have started, and my breakage is a result of that. This is reinforced by the fact that we receive up to 3 emails a day branded Sky but sent from customer.service@o2broadband.co.uk, which simply say “sorry, still working on it” with no contact details other than the head office postal address, and with links to Help and Terms which fail because o2-mail.co.uk is not found! We receive the same number of texts a day, saying the same thing, from 'Mybroadband” and it's not clear who that is. They both give the number of the call centre who when I asked said they ”are still O2”. My only channel of communication is with the call centre who just follow the process and cannot talk to me about the fault. Oh and they suggested I contact the complaint review service.

So in summary it's very confusing, I don't know who I'm really dealing with, and I don't have a decent channel of communication to talk to someone who knows what's really going on with my fault.

** If you are interested in change management and change strategy, you could do worse than to look at my professional site at www.nicvine.com

Syria - still - again

Despite our Commons' vote - the right result albeit perhaps by accident - we need to be vigilant.  With the Americans now beginning to say they will make a bigger strike in which amounts to regime-change, and some UK MPs saying they want another vote, there is still a danger that we will be party to a huge military mistake ... again.

We must continue the pressure on our elected representatives, directly and indirectly, to avoid military action and focus on diplomatic and humanitarian actions.  

It's as simple as that.

If you see two people fighting you don't rush up and stab the one you think is most at fault.  Bombing, no matter how surgical the strike is intended to be, is an escalation of the violence and that is not a humanitarian act and it is not what the British people want. 

 

The cost of a military strike should instead be spent on UN-organised aid all around Syria's borders for the refugees, and the political effort of a military strike should instead be expended upon diplomatic efforts to de-escalate the civil war.  There are no simple answers, as there were none in Afghanistan and Iraq before, both with dreadful continuing violence.  As a nation and a UN member we need to relentlessly support democracy and help in brokering peace at every possible moment.

Syria - NO to UK military action

I sent the following message today to my MP, Nick Raynsford (Lab), Vince Cable (LibDem), and Lord Strathclyde (Con), Leader of the Lords - it's not well researched or cross-referenced, and it's not beautiful English ... it's what I feel and there's no time to spare:

I do not wish the UK to take any action using military force in Syria, nor to support the USA or any other country in so doing.

 

I implore you to search your conscience on the question of the UK becoming involved in the Syrian civil war, and then to vote against any such motion.

 

Chemical weapons are an emotive issue, yet as a country we must proceed logically.  Let me make just a few points:

1. of course our armed forces, and those of the USA and possibly even the French, are eager to do what they are trained for, to exercise their skills to their best ability - which is why their counsel should not be the only one
2. we should listen with equal weight to those with very similar experience who are now retired and therefore have no particular incentive - every one I have heard has counselled against military action
3. it is not logical to think that we can make some kind of strike that will (a) only hit the chemical weapons installations, (b) have the effect of stopping the use of chemical weapons again, and (c) not have any knock-on effects in the region and our relationship with all the players in the Middle East
4. have you stopped to consider why this chemical weapon attack was in a part of Damascus and why the televison coverage of the aftermath was so detailed?  We don't normally see people dying on our screens.  Is it possible that the Assad regime want the West to strike at him, that this will strengthen him and further his agenda?  Furthermore have you considered that by firing upon Assad's forces we are militarily siding with the opposition, and means we are at risk of providing help to Al Qaeda elements
5. finally to say the unsayable:  why is the use of chemical weapons a call to arms for western countries when Syria has been murdering hundreds of civilians with bombs and bullets for months?;  if we are so horrified by death at the hands of government why don't we intervene in Egypt?

Of course civil war is appalling and the deaths of civilians is horrifying;  we should be doing everything in our power socially and economically to calm the 'fire' of civil war, to provide humanitarian aid, to support the surrounding countries in containing knock-on effects.

 

Please vote against any motion that instructs or encourages the UK to use or support military force in Syria.

Improvements to the blunt instrument of Democracy

Here we are, 2 years away from the next General Election in the UK (unless the Lib Dems break the coalition early).  You can feel the attention of the political parties switching from government & opposition to getting (re)elected.  I can feel my frustration rising at the ineptitude and energy-sapping effect of the whole process.

There are a million articles on this whole subject, and I have read a few good ones - why should I add another one?  Partly it's cathartic for me, so it matters little if no-one is reading. 

However I also want to start a campaign for offering solutions rather than just erudite critiques and analyses of the problem.  It doesn't matter that I am no expert on government or political parties, it doesn't matter that my solutions are undoubtedly flawed and lacking in detail.  I am the common man, and I want government in my name.  The more of us who propose solutions, no matter how sketchy or oddball, the more we are contributing to the democratic process and stimulating the right kind of debate.

Government in my name is perhaps the biggest challenge for democracy, because a system of 2, 3 or even 4 major parties ensures that a very sizeable minority did not vote for the government policies in any given government.  This is compounded by governments wilfully failing to adhere to their election manifestos.  Of course government of any colour is a matter of flexibility and compromise, because no country is immune from external economic factors and unexpected events.  They should however stick to their principles.

Before my constructive inputs, let me comment on my frustrations in the political sphere that pertains in Aug 2013.  

• the Conservatives have just hired Jim Messina, an American re-election strategist who worked in both Obama (democrat!) campaigns, and he will stay in the USA and report to both Australian Lynton Crosby (Election Advisor, and co-founder of CTF Partners referred to as a lobbying firm and accused of working for 'big tobacco'), and Grant Shapps (Party Co-Chairman, user of alter egos and founder of PrintHouse Corporation and HowToCorp, accused of plagiarising web content and false testimonials) - so we can believe everything we're going to be told there then
• the Lib Dems are trapped on the underside of the coalition - we hear little about the good they have done, and much about their failures - they will disappear almost with trace unless they are far more assertive in publicising their positive activities and explaining the necessary compromises
• Labour are doing exactly what I am struggling against, they criticise without having credible alternatives - many people, including within their party, are saying they don't know what they stand for now
• the minority parties get almost no coverage in the press - I have no idea what they are thinking and achieving
• the press in any case, even those with the best intentions, acts as a filter - as a common man I don't have the time or expertise to root out the facts behind the issues they choose to publicise, let alone the issues they ignore

Here are my solutions:
1. enforce manifestos to have a common framework of headings under which the party defines their track record, their view of the challenges and their policies for managing and improving the situation nationally - then the electorate can effectively compare credibility, understanding and intention
2. individual candidates must then produce more detail within this manifesto framework, both consistent with the national approach and relevant to their area - then the electorate can compare the local view in the national context
3. a single non-commercial website, managed say by the electoral commission, should allow an equal amount of space to every party and each candidate, or independent, to hold the manifesto information at no cost - then we have a single version of the truth both before and after the election
3. move to proportional representation - then we have a better mix of representation, with more people having cast some kind of vote (2nd or even 3rd choice) for elected representatives (and until then, vote on the basis of your local candidates rather than the national party)
4. severely restrict spending on election campaigns, and also the methods of raising money, using a fixed amount per candidate that is inversely proportional to the number of candidates in the party, which has the effect of supporting minority parties whose voices are so often drowned out - then we have a slightly less uneven playing field
5. monthly live debates on TV between the leaders of all parties to address questions raised by the public (only those public who voted in the last election) - running throughout the life of the parliament, with only the last 3 months devoted to electioneering
6. allow for an electorate to remove their representative

... there's more, this will do for a start.

Wimbledon Ladies Final day

Had a fabulous day at Wimbledon on 6 Jul.  

Started with a veterans match on Court No 3: Leconte & Bahrami, both huge comedians, v. McNamara & McNamee - all still wonderfully skilled, despite it being 30 years or so since their hey day.

Wonderful, perfect weather, our own fizz & strawbs on a bench outside Centre Court.

Then into Centre court, Gangway 513 Row Z - up in the shade, with cool air blowing - a real result.

Then an excellent Ladies Final, Lisicki's nerves taking nothing away from Bartoli's energy and accuracy.















Followed by Men's Doubles which goes so fast, and the Ladies Doubles almost as fast.

Everything in Wimbledon, and on London Transport, worked perfectly.

I've been sailing

Here's what I have been doing for the last 2 months, sailing halfway round the UK in our yacht:  click here

It was a fantastic experience for my wife, Lesley, and I.

Charitable Donations

I’m only a sample of one, and although I know others who think like me this is hardly a scientific or significant analysis; nevertheless I think it’s instructive.

• I never give where I believe government should provide, e.g. systematic gaps in health & benefits – I prefer to pressure government, no matter how remotely for a systematic solution
• I do give to causes I know and trust in terms of the money going to the right place e.g. the Meniere’s Society where I was a Trustee
• I do give spontaneously where I admire the effort and courage of the fund-raising individual e.g. David Walliams’ swimming marathons, Eddie Izzard’s running marathons
• I do give a small amount of money every time I’m asked by a friend or work colleague who is doing a sponsored something – I can afford it and it’s a politeness and a community action
• I have put in effort rather than money, by sponsored swimming, and I have waived money, by singing for charity (no, they weren’t paying me to stop).

What conclusion can we draw from that?  Perhaps that I’m an unsympathetic, inconsistent, knee-jerking, celebrity-influenced egotist.  Instead, or perhaps in addition, I think it’s fair to say that:

• I like to see value for money, as in all my expenditure, and I have a fear of supporting bloated bureaucracies rather than the intended recipients
• I accept the occasional tactical need to support what should be a government responsibility, but much prefer a strategic approach where government more predictably does the right thing on our behalf
• I acknowledge the pleasure in being associated with good social action, very occasionally getting active myself

Projects like HS2 and understanding the case

I am ambivalent towards HS2 (I don't live anywhere near the route), and the recent phase 2 announcements have done nothing to dispel that.  If there was a referendum on it, I would instinctively vote 'no' because it's a huge cost over 20 years (approaching a generation) which delivers only an incremental improvement to travel.

However, there's the problem ... "instinctively". It is very hard, on this and many other issues facing the UK, for even a reasonably well-informed member of the public to get to the bottom of the business case. Quite apart from the technical and financial complexity, there is the political positioning and obfuscation from all interested parties.

I have two radical suggestions:

1.  the government strategy should be more about creating work, communities and culture all over the UK, and less about people constantly travelling between big cities; the technology of the industrial revolution encouraged specialisation and centralisation, whereas the technology of the communications revolution (yes, the one we’re in right now) should encourage de-centralisation and multi-skilled communities.

2.  I should start a 'campaign for clear analysis' (CAMCAN) which will provide a simple business case framework of costs, measurable benefits, quantified risks and alternatives.  This could then be populated for each major UK project for the population at large to understand and meaningfully compare.  (This might just be useful for the upcoming EU Referendum.)

Coalition - a game of Two Halves

Not a 'game' at all, of course - rather the serious business of being responsible, mature public servants engaged in governing the country for the common good of all it's people.

So the endless question from a media that always seems most interested in looking for cracks and driving wedges:  how on earth can two parties govern together whilst gearing up to campaign separately?

I think the answer is simple, so long as the people involved are mature, responsible and dedicated to providing the best possible public service.   (Hmmm)

Each party has to be clear about it's current policies in the coalition context, which it will pursue up to the moment the government is dissolved, and it's future policies for when it is a majority party.  It's not rocket science to be able to have two implementation plans within one consistent framework of principle.

The majority of the electorate surely understands that a manifesto is rarely implemented without constraints ... there are always constraints in the state of the nation that is handed over to the new government, and in the European and global economic and financial climates that prevail.  Being in a coalition is another constraint, which requires perhaps even more negotiation and compromise than is usual ... and in these difficult times I believe the coalition has been a strength for the country, and not least because they have young, energetic leaders who have got things done in appalling financial circumstances.

On a related tack, it would be helpful if the media would sometimes ask positive constructive questions, instead of always trying to find fault and trip up.  A question "why is there an apparent conflict between X and Y" will be answered along the lines of "there is no conflict" which leaves us none the wiser.  Whereas a question "how are you going to achieve the promised x% or £yBn, and how will you measure that achievement" requires an answer of some positive substance. 

Right now I think that if I could vote in 2015 for a coalition, then I would do so.

Leveson needs implementing - letter to MP

From	Nic Vine <leveson@nicvine.com> Greenwich London SE10
To	Nick Raynsford MP
Subject	Please implement the Leveson report in full as promised
Message	I am appalled at the Prime Minister's apparent betrayal of our trust. It looks as though he is being bent by the winds of the press, when what he should do is have the courage to lead a cross-party consensus. Before Lord Justice Leveson’s report into press behaviour was published the leaders of all three main political parties said publicly and privately  to victims of press abuse that his recommendations should be taken forward on a cross party basis. They also said that they would implement them as long as they were proportionate and workable. Lord Justice Leveson has recommended self-regulation of the press, with its effectiveness and independence (from industry and politcians) guaranteed by law. This is NOT the same as regulation by law. If self-regulation has no legally-backed guarantee, it will lack the independence and teeth that are the hallmark of the current failed system of self-regulation and those for the past 70 years. As your constituent I urge you to write to the Prime Minister asking him to back Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations in full as he said he would, and to have the courage to lead a cross-party consensus to achieve a lasting legacy of sustainable press regulation. Let's find a way to do it, rather than find reasons to not do it. Yours sincerely, Nic Vine Greenwich London SE10 (You can find Hacked Off on Facebook and on twitter, @hackinginquiry) (You can sign the petition at  http://hackinginquiry.org/)

Gap again - poor show

So here we are with a 7 month gap ... it's not that I have nothing worthwhile to say - far from it - so why the silence?  

I suppose I was working flat out, and my wife and I were sailing our new (old) yacht, and there are so many jobs to do, people to see, books to read, even TV to watch - all good excuses and poor reasons.  Oh and I'm attempting to write a book - my work on that sits ju-ust above writing blogs down in the dim, dark recesses of my prioritised list of lists.  

I shall re-prioritise ... I shall put something into this blog every week - a blathering on whatever is tweaking what's left of my grey cells at the time.

twitterati assessment

Twitter is a many-to-many aggregated newsfeed

• if you add up all time and intellectual effort expended on tweeting, and writing about tweeting … it’s probably bigger than the Greek economy
• so it all goes faster and faster with less and less thought
• social media does not feed and house us
• it’s the hugest solution looking for a problem to solve
• meanwhile we continue to use it because we can, because most of are driven to express ourselves, and because we need to be found/seen
• and it has a car-crash fascination despite our best intentions, and very occasionally something interesting
• aaaagh

Why remain an Interim?

A recruitment consultant called me, having found me online - asked if I would consider a permanent role.  I said no thanks, but tell me your problem and I may have some suggestions. She was surprised and asked why, in these difficult times, so many interims were determined not to go back to perm?


My response was that in a nutshell,  after working as an employee for 20 years I am now a career interim because I'm not good at climbing the corporate ladder and working the politics and competitions - what turns me on is getting my arms & head around a new company, a new industry even, and solving problems and delivering benefits. Furthermore at my relatively mature years I like the flexibility.


She then said she understood, and realised that what she wanted too - so, another convert.  (I strongly suspect that I was not the first person she had called today, and that she was having a tough time.  No doubt agencies with too few requirements to fulfill are investing their time in improving their candidate list ready for the upturn ... because they have to believe there's going to be one.  Me, I'm not so sure.)

Cause & Effect: American politics

Everywhere you look, people confuse cause and effect.  Here's an example from the illustrious Guardian (UK newspaper also known as the Grauniad for it's predilection towards typos) in Nov 2011:


"There is plenty of evidence that the thing that really turns off voters is a divided party. Since the war, no sitting US president who has faced an internal primary challenge has gone on to re-election; every one who faced no primary challenger has been re-elected.  So unless Hillary stirs, write off Obama at your peril."


No, no, NO.  The party wants to stay in power - if there's a primary challenge, it means the party thinks the sitting president is doing such a terrible job that s/he is un-electable. It's not the presence of the primary challenger that effects the outcome, it's the reason for there being a primary challenger.  Get it?

Rebalancing the CBI

Have you read the CBI report "Rebalancing the Economy" published 30 Dec 2011? Anyone concerned about UK Ltd should, and that should mean everyone.  Get it here

Comments on The Executive Summary:

1.  it blithely uses the phrase 'sustainable growth' as though just by stating it such a nirvana is achievable - there is no explanation as to what this means and how to actually achieve it - the body of the document only talks about how unsustainable everything has been recently

2.  there's a typo in the second heading - does not instill confidence in the quality of the document, does it

3.  it seems to contradict itself on the amount of new investment required from the private sector over the next 5 years - says £170bn one place and £115bn another place

4.  three of the five trends identified to be advantageous require new exporting to developing & emerging economies - easy to say, the holy grail even, yet the Report does not lay out how to go about this

5.  the other holy grail identified is Investment in the UK - now I may be naive, but any investment will expect a profitable payback, and where does that payback come from if not (eventually) government and households - the very areas that the Report says we should not rely upon, for obvious reasons

There appears to be other typographical errors, eg Exhibit 7 title should say £40bn not £42bn.

On the whole, and frustratingly, the Report is long on numerical analysis and statements of the blindingly obvious, and exceedingly short on concrete proposals and examples to achieve the aims

My comments on the exporting of what I do - interim management - are the top entry (no. 15747) in a Russams-GMS initiative here - and, no, I don't have any money to invest, I need what little I have to pay for my old age

The View got hazy

Where did those 6 months go?  How did I replicate the failure of so many blogs & sites to maintain the energy after the first flush of excitement?  Will this be another blip generated by the false dawn of a new year starting?  Does anyone care, or even notice?  When will I stop asking rhetorical questions (ooh, self-referencing there).


You'd better keep reading to find out!