Joined up thinking

The title of this Blog is one of my favourite phrases, as I see so little evidence of it.

Yesterday, the Government announced a serious investment in the railway infrastructure, however this will miss out my home town of Kingston-upon-Hull.
The local council have had plans to upgrade the Castle Street intersection and the A62, which is one of the major roads out of Hull, from the dock area, with connections to M60, M1 and A1 further along.  Diverting this traffic will mean going through some of the most highly built up areas in the city.  The process of this upgrade will mean traffic chaos for at least two years from the date it starts, which is when?

Kingston-upon-Hull is supposed to be the site of the future of the renewables industry, with Siemens apparently ready to sign on the dotted line to build a huge factory near the Humber estuary making offshore wind turbines.

If you were Siemens would you come to Hull?  One of the prime requirements for inward investment is that it is  dependent on the infrastructure in place, all they can look forward to is poor road and rail connections for at least the next three or four years.

The Railways in Britain

In days gone by, the Tory Government, in the midst of selling off lots of things that were publicly owned to the private sector, sold off British Rail.  I would like to think that they did not like the sandwiches, but that would be just too ironic.  The way that it was sold off was unusual, as the rail companies were regionalised, but there was a different company that was responsible for the track and the stations.  I do not think that this is an ideal situation, but it is the situation that we have now.
Today, the new Tory Government have announced that the are going to insist that the private companies invest millions of pounds and turn their trains from polluting diesel to cleaner electricity.  The other advantage with an all electric railway is that costs per mile per passenger are slightly lower. The problem is that where are these companies going to get the money from?  They have already had a cut in the subsidy that they get from the Government into the pot of money that they have.  Out of this shrinking pot they have to find the money to maintain the service that they run, pay their staff to run the railways, then give handsome bonuses to the senior staff for doing such a good job, and pay a dividend to the shareholders, some of whom are our pension funds.
If the railways are having to be 'propped up' by Government subsidy, then surely this is an indication that they were not the sort of industry that would survive in the private sector, or were the terms of the deals they were offered not sufficient for them to make an operating profit.  There must have been something wrong for the subsidy to be still be on offer.  The Labour party are going to have a review of this situation  because, like me, they do not believe that this situation cannot be maintained where shrinking pots of money are being asked to pay for more things.  They have publicly stated that re-nationalisation is not being ruled out, but would not a different sort of structure be better suited to run the service that thousands of people every day rely on to get to work etc?

Russian Oligarchs

There are many things in this world that I do not understand and some of them I will write about here.  Here is one:

In the last century there was a revolution in Russia, where the workers took ownership of the means of production.  What this actually means is that the State would hold the ownership in trust for the people of Russia.  There were high levels of employment, most people had somewhere to live.  Large sections of the society were happy.  There was corruption also.  Senior members of the PolitBureau would be driven around in large, chauffeur-driven cars and lived a lavish lifestyle.

Bringing the situation up to date, there are a number of extremely wealthy Russians, Abramovic for example,  who own things like the Gas Company or the Mines, things that were previously State-Owned. 

How did this happen?  Who was involved?  Can someone explain this to me?

Lord's Reform.

We are in an interesting situation.  All three parties had Lords Reform on their election manifesto and yet there seems to be some problems with getting it passed into law. 
The Conservative party have a significant number of back benchers and junior ministers voting against this.  I do not know how they will deal with this situation but to openly defy their party in such numbers (91 at the last count) is surely a matter for concern.
The Labour party voted in favour of it at the second time of asking but they are unhappy that the Government have introduced a timetable for the discussion of this.  The Labour party are obviously not worried about the bill being 'talked out' where so much discussion takes place there is not sufficient time to make the bill law.
Finally, the Liberal Democrats, who introduced this bill have the felling that the partnership with the Conservative party may be damaged if David Cameron and the party elite cannot keep their back benchers in line. 
I do remember one senior back bencher standing up in Parliament stating that they should ditch the coalition and have another general election.  Do they seriously think that they have a chance of winning an outright majority?  They have not had the smoothest of rides since taking power, do they think they can go it alone?  There is no doubt in my mind that the Liberal Democrats will be very lucky to hang on to what they have got now, and that is speaking as a Lib Dem voter.

What a week that was!

Phew!  I do not know whether I am standing on my head or my feet.  A week past Sunday my wife got ordained as a deacon in the Church of England and I went to York on the Saturday so that I did not have to leave at silly o' clock to get there on time on Sunday.  Saturday was a terrible day for all sorts of reasons, but it rained persistently for most of the time that I was there.  Sunday morning was not good for me, I awoke really early and started panicing about what was going to be happening that day.  I had not breakfast as I set off to find a parking space to leave the car in.  Actually, I found one really easily and managed to pay by mobile phone.  They promised a text when the parking ticket ran out, but it did not arrive.  The service went well and my nephew Joe and his wife and two children made the trip from York, which I appreciated possibly more than I showed.  We then returned to Hull for a party at the church that we used to belong to.  I did not manage to get to talk to everyone, but those I talked to, I would like to thank for their time.
Monday morning I returned to work for a rest.  Lots of time spent doing nothing constructive.  Then I found a job that I thought I would like to do and the closing date was 5 p.m. on that day, so I rushed home, completed the form and got it sent in withonly minutes to go.
Tuesday was a trip to Leeds Trinity University.  What a nice, quaint, University.  One of the smallest in the country.  Lots of Wilberforce students did not turn up which was a major embarrassment for the College and we looked around and took part in some sessions that the academic staff had been volunteered for.  All of these went well, with only a minor problem in the Journalism session.
Wednesday was the post-mortem day and plans were discussed how to avoid embarrassing the College, or the staff that go with them and ensure that a decent number turn up.  Not having it compulsory was the first idea, and the second would be to have a returnable deposit if the kids turned up.  However. two out of the three people taking part in the debate were leaving in July, so their input might not carry the importqnce that it might.
Thursday and Friday were a complete washout.
Saturday was our new parish's Summer fair, and my presence was requested.  That morning I had bought a new book and I was enjoying reading it, consequently I arrived a little on the late side.
Sunday morning was the first service that Barbara deaconed.  We got an official welcome from the church and congregation, and then had a shared lunch, which was delightful.  Amanda and Caleb turned up with Nicola, amanda's mother in law, as did Denise and all her family.  Sunday afternoon was Heyop practice, and just by luck the person that should have turned up with the key did not.  So we went to Alan's house for the practice instead.  It was lucky there was only a few of us and Alan had a large room to accomodate us.  Another bit of sad news was that Hazel, our cellist, has had to leave as she does not have sufficient time to play with us.  New members was also something that was identified as a problem.
And we are back to Monday, and there is a job that I want to apply for that has the closing date of 5 p.m. today.................

Women Bishops

Today the General Synod is voting on the proposal to allow women to ascend to the office of Bishop.  However the vote is not that straight forward.  As this is a contentious issue, there has been 'tinkering' with the proposal and amendments have been added.  One of the amendments has the effect that it enshrines sexual discrimination into Law.  This will give people the right not to believe that a woman bishop has the same authority as a male bishop.  This could have the consequence of priests being ordained by a woman bishop not being an acceptable parish priest.  And if that priest ascended to the rank of bishop, there would be some that believe that he did not have the authority to ordain other priests.  Every priest and bishop would have to carry a 'pedigree' of every member of the Church so that certain people can be assured that their authority to practise has not been 'contaminated' by the absence of a Y chromosome.
The whole problem has arisen from the problem that Jesus' disciples were all men.  However, if you think of the context, it was an androgynous society, only men were allowed to preach, so that the only way God could get his message across was to make Jesus male, and an all male disciple-ship.  If Jesus was born into a different type of society, we might not be having this discussion at all, or even having the opposite discussion!

Barclays..........

Today, Barclays Bank's outlook got worse.  Moody's the credit rating company, look to be ready to downgrade Barclays rating unless they get the problems under control by the end of the month.  The consequences of that action is that Barclays will have to pay more to borrow money, which means that they will be less profitable.  The problems at Barclays seem to be huge.  They have to replace three senior figures, the C.E.O. the Chairman and the chief operating officer, who had only recently been promoted.  Then they have to sort out the culture.  Several well placed persons have commented on the culture that pervades Barclays Bank.  This is an equally difficult thing to do and may involve more people losing their jobs, or 'falling on their swords' to further save the bank from further embaressment.  And all of this is the result of people trying to make the bank more money!

The point is, where did that money come from?  Three guesses.................................

The Glazers take control...........

The owners of  Manchester United F.C. have decided to 'move' the company to the Cayman Islands and float the company on the New York Stock Exchange.  The obvious reason for doing this is to raise more money.  American investors will purchase shares in Manchester United in the hope of gaining a good return on their investment.  Of course the money that the Glazers earn from this will be subject to Cayman Island Tax Law.  Now I am no expert, but isn't the reason they used the Cayman Islands is to avoid tax?
The next thing to consider is that out of all this money that the Glazers are going to earn, how much of it is likely to be invested in players?  On recent showings - not much, or none at all.  What did they do with the money they got from the sale of Chritiano Ronaldo?  They paid off a tax bill.
I am not a Man. Utd. fan, in fact I think that it is vaguely funny that a team that has been 'sticking it' to others for so long, might be about to get some of it's own medicine, and the chief architects are going to their own board.
Schadenfreude at its best!

Modern Industrial Realtions

Recently, I was reminded of a time in our past, under Harold 'SuperMac' MacMillan, when we 'never had it so good'.  A worker could leave a job, and easily find another.  We had high levels of employment and low levels of benefit payments (although I do realise that benefits were a lot less generous back then)  the economy was booming.
Contrast that with now.  We have rising levels of unemployment, particulalry among the younger age groups, and benefit payments are also rising, (we are also in danger of putting more people at risk by cutting their benefit).  As a consequence, the Government's intake from tax and National Insurance from the working population is decreasing, and they are having to borrow more to cover the deficit (who from?).
The effect this is having on people that do have a job is well known.  They work lunch-times, work unpaid overtime, and try not to phone in sick.  All due to fear that they might lose their jobs if they are seen as being 'unreliable'. 
The most extreme example of this, I found out about recently.  There is a fast-food chain operating in the Esat-End of London that frequently hires people whose immigration status is not clear.  Frequently pays them below the National Minimum Wage.  Sometimes has staff staying 'on site' in store cupboards, frequently involving 'hot bedding' which is where one member of staff works, while the other sleeps, and at change of shift, they change places.  Although many laws are being broken in these situations, nothing has happened to the owners of the company, because none of the staff are willing to make a complaint, because they fear that doing this will result in them losing their jobs.  I have another term that describes this situation - SLAVERY, and this has been illegal in thsi country since 1833.  However, many commentators claim that there are more people in slavery now than in the 1800's.  Here's a few more to add to the list.