More Government Madness

"Heathrow faces fines for chaos" was the headline in the Sunday Times 26.12.10. Apparently the government is to bring in new legislation that will allow airports to be fined tens of millions of pounds for disrupting passengers' travel.

Has the government gone completely off it's trolley? Does it think that the airport operators have any control whatsoever on the amount of snow dumped on their runways or the weight of ice forming on their planes? Of course they don't. And you can bet your life that none of these "fines" will find their way back to the passengers who have been disrupted. The government has just come up with one more creative wheeze to get more money for nothing and increase costs for everybody else. If the airports are fined large amounts they will obviously have to pass on the costs to the travelling public, thus reducing the numbers who can afford to fly and increasing the dissatisfaction of those who are trying to fly but cannot because of the snow.

The government is supposed to represent the people - and I can't see many of the thinking public supporting this idea. But if they are daft enough to bring in this legislation, it is only fair (in line with their "equality" agenda) to bring in similar legislation granting tax rebates to everyone who has their travel disrupted by their failure to keep the roads clear. Or is it a cardinal sin if you can't swan off on holiday abroad but not if you can't manage to get to the shops to buy food? This government has a very weird sense of priorities!

Creative Accountancy

Many years ago I met my friend for the first time after leaving school. I had gone to university and he had gone straight out to find a job. I asked him what he was doing now and he replied "Creative Accountancy". An ordinary accountant, it seemed, did the more mundane monetary tasks, while a Creative Accountant was ....... well ...... more creative. It seemed to me just like a new or more polite term for "fiddling the figures".

Well those currently in office at the Treasury must be well qualified in Creative Accountancy. They have invented a new term to make a large reduction in grant sound like a reduction of less than half the real amount! The trouble is, as no one has heard of this term before, they have to explain it, and once they have done that it becomes obvious to all what a devious brood they all are.

The executives of Follyville have just been told what their government grant will be next year. It would appear that the grant for 2011-12 has been reduced by 6% (as a percentage of "Revenue Spending Power"). On enquiry, this new term is explained as "the government grant + the amount of Council Tax they are expected to collect". You don't need to be very qualified in maths to realise that they are "fiddling the figures" on a massive scale to try and hide the fact that the real reduction in grant is actually 15.5%. No wonder politicians get a bad name!

Unacceptable Bishops

I have just discovered that Jeffrey John has been kicked off the shortlist for the new Bishop of Southwark due to public opposition - the second time this indignity has befallen him (first after being shortlisted as Bishop of Reading).
They find him unacceptable because he is gay. They seem to overlook the well known biblical passage (Galatians 3:28) that states that in Christ there is "neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Just acceptable bishops and unacceptable bishops apparently. Those making all the noise should stop worrying about Jeffrey John's credentials and start worrying about their own credentials as Christians.
The Archbishop of Canterbury is worried about precipitating a split in the church but if these people left, it seems it would not be too much of a loss as, it seems, they are not real members anyway!

Student Finance - the ongoing saga

See my post of 11 May 2010.

I thought that was the end of it. Wrong!.
About three weeks after submitting the photocopied forms my wife and I both received a proper printed form (in separate envelopes despite the fact that they know we both live at the same address) with a letter explaining that our daughter had now submitted her details online and could we both please complete these forms and return them. For those of you who don't know these are multipage booklets requiring much information to be looked up in order to complete them. Having done this already I was somewhat reluctant to do it all again. So I phoned the student finance hotline. I suppose I shouldn't really be all that surprised to find myself having a very one-sided conversation with a machine. "Press 1 for xxxx ; press 2 for xxxx" - I'm sure you all know the routine. However, one of the options said "If you have been requested to submit information which you have already submitted, you need do nothing." Fair enough - so I did nothing.

My daughter has just received an e-mail message from Student Finance acknowledging receipt of her online details and stating that they would be sending out forms to her parents in the near future for them to complete their details!

How on earth can we allow the country to be run on organization like this? If all the information could have been submitted online at the same time on a single application form with a single reference number Alice might have been told by now how much she was getting. As it is, I can see a repeat of last year when many students didn't get any finance at all until at least the end of the first term. Alice has already had a request from her university to pay the first term's accommodation rent up front now. Where is that money supposed to come from?

If the "burning of the quangos" we have been promised is a reality, then I suggest Student Finance should be one of those to go. Its organisation seems at least as bad, if not worse, than the infamous Child Support Agency. The job could easily be carried out much more efficiently by any self-respecting payroll department.

Follyville Economics

Those of us who work for local authorities are in a no-win situation as far as economics are concerned. The government has, over a long period of time, made strenuous suggestions to local government that they should find whatever means they practically can to save taxpayers money. The officers at Follyville Borough Council have done just that and, for the year just gone, managed to save £850,000 on the planned budget. I don't know how that compares to other councils, but I would have said it was worthy of a pat on the back. ....... but no. Quite the contrary! One of Follyville's own councillors is demanding to know why the council underspent by such a large sum. [He must follow this strange economic logic hypothesised in my last post.] His reasoning must be "bugger the government's requests - if it's in the budget we'll jolly well spend it whether we need to or not." Surely he must realise that a large underspend is always preferable to a large overspend ............ or maybe not!

Economics

So we've now had the "emergency budget". Did it make any sense? Well that's another question. I'm no economist but I do understand common sense and logic and to me this budget didn't add up. The government's declared intention was to encourage "the economy" to grow. As I understand it "the economy" is measured in terms of the amount of stuff we produce and sell. So basically the government wants producers to produce more and consumers to buy more. So to encourage this it increases VAT to 20%, thus making everything more expensive. Wages are frozen and benefits cut, meaning that people will have less money to spend. So with less spending power and higher prices normal logic would dictate that people will be able to buy much less. Is the government completely off its rocker or is there a special kind of economic logic of which I am unaware? If anyone can advise, please leave a comment.

David Cameron is apparently asking for suggestions of how to get us out of the financial mess we are in. I don't know that I can help here but I can make some suggestions to help prevent us getting in a similar mess in the future.
As the problem is basically too much debt, both nationally and individually, one simple remedy would be to ban the continuous stream of junk mail being sent out by the banks trying to encourage people to have one of their credit cards. I must get at least one of these per week. I do not want a credit card. Credit cards lead people into debt. As a bank customer I am appalled at the expense they go to to promote these things. This is my money they are using (and other customers) which would be far better used in giving us all a better rate of interest on our savings...... quite apart from the acreage of forest that must be destroyed annually to service this rubbish. If people really want a credit card they can go to the bank and request one ...... it really is not a commodity that needs advertising (they don't advertise cheque books for heaven's sake!).

Alongside the junk mail ban the government should also restrict credit cards to one per person. This should be quite sufficient for peoples needs yet still retain a certain amount of control over the amount of collective debt.

The answer is obvious, Mr Cameron, now get on and do it!

A Very Strange Wedding

I have just been to a strange wedding. I have been to a good few weddings in my time after a long career in church choirs and have seen many strange occurences, but never quite so many in one wedding!
The bride was Nigerian and the groom white English. Nothing wrong with that except that Africans keep different time to the rest of us. At the appointed time of the wedding the three or four people in the congregation were told that the bride was running twenty minutes late. Then, about a minute later, it was announced that she had arrived. She came in accompanied by various relatives and friends, many in traditional Nigerian wedding robes. The bride wore a traditional English wedding dress but seemed unable to walk in it without constantly kicking out the front of it from underneath so she didn't trip herself up.
The groom kept fidgeting about and looking nervously over his shoulder as though he was a prisoner on the run and expected the police to turn up at any minute to arrest him. Or perhaps he was worried someone would stand up and declare an impediment. He managed to get the ring on the brides finger without incident but then she put a ring on his finger and it wasn't until after the vows had been made that the groom cried out in pain and tried to take the ring off. It was at this point that it was realised that the ring was on the wrong finger and, worse, was stuck.

During the singing of the last hymn another contingent of Nigerians arrived, including a flower-girl who was very disgruntled that she had missed the actual wedding. The married couple went to the side of the church to sign the registers and there was a big kerfuffle trying to get the pen to work and then an even bigger kerfuffle which, I discovered afterwards was due to the groom having spelt his surname wrongly. It was only spotted by the rector because the best man, who happened to be the groom's father, also signed as a witness, and spelt his surname differently. Rapid alterations had to be made, which gave just enough time for the final witness to arrive at the very last minute, to be hastily ushered up to the front of the church and to sign the register, despite the fact that she had not actually witnessed the marriage at all!

As they say in Yorkshire - "There's nowt so funny as folk".

Student Finance - Don't You Just Love It ?

Well .... no, actually. Sunday afternoons are supposed to be a time to relax and chill out and catch up with the rest of the week. Not this last one! It was completely wasted trying unsuccessfully to sort out student finance for young Alice who is off to uni in the autumn. She had made her application for finance on-line. Now I and Mrs Journeyman had to fill in our bits. Not too onerous you might think. You would be wrong. In the sensible, ideal world, which I like to try and promote, we would have logged into Alice's account using her registration number and filled in a few financial details. Simple (as the meerkats would say). Unfortunately the Student Finance Company has never heard of meerkats. It has, instead, designed the system to be as complex as possible, presumably with the intention of putting off a large proportion of would-be applicants from applying at all!

Firstly both I and Mrs Journeyman needed our own individual registration numbers. Why this was necessary, when neither of us is applying for funding and when our details will have to be linked to Alice's application to make any sense at all, completely eludes me. However, I bow to Big Brother and try to register. The system says I am already registered! How this can be also completely eludes me. I have never applied for student finance on-line before. The last time was five years ago and then I filled in a simple paper form - I am quite sure I didn't get a registration number. The system flatly refuses to let me apply for a new registration number so there is no option but to phone. The good news - the office is open until 5.30pm on Sunday. The bad news - I'm held in a queue - for nearly half an hour - listening to the recorded message going round and round. And to make matters worse - after stating the obvious, that they were very busy, it said "you may like to visit us on-line"! That was the whole point of my call. I'd tried to be helpful and do things on-line but their system didn't work.

At last someone answered. After taking about a dozen bits of personal information which had no relevance to the case, the lady at the other end informed me that I was indeed already registered. She started off by being quite helpful - she actually told me what my number was. Then things started getting nasty! Having already guessed that Mrs Journeyman would need a different registration number to me, and anxious not to lose the person on the other end, as it had taken so long to get through to her, I asked for a registration number for my wife. You would think I had asked for a consignment of radioactive plutonium or something similar. She had to speak to my wife. I explained that I was upstairs in the bedroom and that Mrs Journeyman was in the kitchen cooking tea, and that I could provide all the information she might need. That was not good enough. She had to speak to Mrs Journeyman in person - because of the Data Protection Act. Now, much as I dislike this iniquitous piece of legislation, I do have a rough idea what it is for - to prevent organisations disclosing sensitive information to persons who are not authorised to receive it. But the caller had obviously not been briefed on this. Try as I might to point out the obvious - that I was offering to give information rather than request it - she stuck to her guns. Rather than lose her, I had to run around the house with the mobile phone looking for my wife. She was then asked the same questions as I had been. When she finished she passed the phone back to me and I said to the nice lady, "there - I could have told you all that couldn't I!" I got no response.

So we now had two individual registration numbers. Nearly at journey's end? No! Read on. We input one of the registration numbers and the computer then demanded to know the answer to a riddle - "a memorable place other than where you live or were born". Now, even if we restrict the places to England, there is probably about a million to choose from. The chances of me hitting on the exact one the computer has in mind are pretty slim. I tried one at random - and of course it didn't work. With most systems there is a facility to reset your password if you have forgotten it (or in this case, never had it). But on this site, no, this facility did not exist. Mrs Journeyman was asked for "an inspiring person" - again, a bit like looking for a needle in a haystack. In the end we had to get Alice to print off two copies of the application form (at vast expense in both paper and ink) to be completed and sent in manually.

If the government is as committed to e-commerce as it says it is, it really must do something about making the systems useable.

Cheese Sandwich - Licensed to Kill

The Times reported on Friday (30.4.10) the very sad tale of a two-year-old boy who had his lunchtime sandwich confiscated by staff at his day nursery. The reason - it was a cheese sandwich. The mainstay of British workers' lunchtime sandwiches for many years. Good old Cheddar. Mainstay it might be, but it was not on the authorised list of approved sandwich fillings. If his mother had thought to add a lettuce leaf or some tomato it would have passed the healthy eating test but plain Cheddar ...... definitely not. It obviously escaped the attention of these morons, but by adding a lettuce leaf or a piece of tomato, the size and nature of the cheese involved would be altered not one jot. If a certain sized piece of cheese is inherently unhealthy then it will be just as unhealthy whatever else is added to it.

In my professional capacity I am supposed to promote and encourage healthy eating but with the food gestapo blindly taking unilateral action like this without thinking what they are doing, the whole subject gets a bad name. The little boy in question went home completely traumatised, not to mention hungry. Was that healthy? Certainly not. These people had fallen foul of the common failing of many in authority whether individual or corporate. They see a problem and solve it ...... never mind what other problems their solution may cause; never mind whether the action is proportionate or not. It solves the problem doesn't it .... so it must be good.
I seem to remember a gentleman by the name of Adolf Hitler once had a little problem with some Jews. I leave you to draw your own conclusions.

Change for change's sake

One thing I can't get my head around is the obsession of government, both national and local, with change. Virtually every management course you see advertised has a section within it called "Managing Change" or something very similar. What the courses obviously don't explain is that this is how to manage change if you have to, but that change is not compulsory.

The age-old proverb, which I agree with wholeheartedly, says "If it ain't broke don't try and fix it". If things are running well don't mess them up. But these new would-be managers come back from their courses determined to put what they have learnt into practice. If they can't actually find something that needs improving they take something that is working well and experiment with that. They seem to think that if they can make something good even better they will be able to bask in the glory of a job well done. But in the majority of cases they just end up with a total disaster and a huge bill.

The National Audit Office has just reported that since May 2005 the Government has reorganized 91 departments at an annual cost of £200 million. Since 1980 25 new central government departments have been created and this was so successful that 13 of them no longer exist! Departments have been "re-branded" with huge amounts of taxpayer's money being spent on designing new logos and reprinting stationery. Departments have been moved, on a whim, from London to the far ends of the country, with most of the staff refusing to go. This means not only huge relocation costs but also significant recruitment costs of new staff and the loss of all the years of accumulated wisdom and experience which gets left behind. And for what???
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7066201.ece
In my own local authority of Follyville consultants recently spent over a year holding meetings and workshops with staff with a view to restructuring a department to improve efficiency and capability. They came up with a plan which was then debated and approved. But then the "powers that be" decided there was not enough money in the budget to put the plan into effect. Of course there wasn't ...... they had spent all the money on the consultants! What a gross waste of everybody's time and taxpayer's money.

When the Government points out the size of the National Debt, as though it is somehow the fault of the people at large, they should stop for a moment and consider the fact that a large part of that debt is not caused by providing extra services to the public but on buggering up the perfectly good services that were in place already.

Material Chaos

You would think that in this material world of ours, retailers would make it as easy as possible for people to buy things. Apparently not. The latest trend is to make it as difficult as possible for people to buy things.
On returning home from a weekend in London, Mrs Journeyman and I stopped in at Lakeside. (It was pouring with rain and that was the only place we could think of to walk a bit without getting wet). On passing through House of Fraser (as you have to do to get from the covered car-park) we noticed a display of the latest (and last) Michael Jackson DVD. Our daughter is music-mad and had a birthday coming up the next weekend so Mrs Journeyman went to buy a copy.
First she had to swear an oath that she was over 21 and then give her name and address (? so they could come chasing after her if she had committed perjury).
What is that all about? We are talking about a DVD, not alcohol or drugs, and a PG rated DVD at that. This is advisory guidance that it may not be suitable for children under 12. It is not mandatory - but even if it was, where does the 21 come in? Although Mrs Journeyman looks young for her age, it is quite obvious that she is over 21 and well over 12. And why do they want her address?? To pass on to "Big Brother" who keeps a list of anyone purchasing a Michael Jackson DVD in case they might be seditious agitators?
On questionning the sales girl, she admitted that she thought this was completely over the top but, after having gone to check with the manager, returned to tell us that this was now "policy".
Once more I have to ask the question I am renowned for ...... Why? Luckily, at the time we were the only customers at that counter but in the run up to Christmas this "policy" is going to cause absolute mayhem ....... and for what benefit? Perhaps, if any senior management from the House of Fraser are reading this, they would care to enlighten me.

Marriage - Civil Partnership - Is there a difference?

Much in the press recently about marriage and civil partnerships. Lord Alli is proposing an amendment to the Equality Bill, currently being debated, to allow civil partnerships to be registered in churches, synagogues etc. Apparently this is legally prohibited at the moment but certain smaller denominations want to venture into this area. The amendment will make it clear that this activity is permissable not mandatory. Fair enough.

What I don't understand is the strange editorial in the Times on 24 February, written by a gay man, running down the whole idea of marriage and suggesting a further amendment to the Equality Bill allowing civil partnerships for heterosexual couples. Doesn't he realize we've had these for many years ........ they are known as Registry Office Weddings! And many people use them. They give the option of a religious (in a church) or a non-religious (in a Registry Office or one of the new civil venues) (civil) wedding.

According to the writer of the editorial the institution of marriage is in steep decline and heterosexual couples would jump at the chance of a civil partnership along the lines of the French model. Now I know absolutely nothing about the French model for civil partnerships but, according to the journalist, following the French model could "result in hundreds of thousands of couples, many with children, entering into legally protected partnerships that otherwise they would not". Apparently, the difference between this civil partnership and a civil wedding is that the former can be ended by a letter from either partner. Excuse me! ............. He's only just stated this is a legally protected partnership. Where exactly is the protection if the arrangement ceases on the receipt of a letter? If this is what they want, they might just as well just live together in the first place as many seem to do anyway. We don't need a strange grade of existence that is neither one thing nor the other. What we need is marriage (whether hetero- or homo- sexual couples) and not-marriage. Simple.

More Stupid Policy - Insurance

I've just tried to renew our house and contents insurance policy. The guff accompanying the renewal notice says this can be done very simply by phoning the number stated. So I do ....... and give my name and details of the address and policy number....only to be told that the policy is in my wife's name and despite the fact that I am also listed on the policy I cannot renew the policy without confirmation from her. Of course she is out, as this is the only time I get to get any serious matters dealt with. The fact that I am also listed on the policy apparently does not make it a joint policy (so what is it then??).
The reason they cannot renew on my say-so is apparently due to the Data Protection Act (that iniquitous instrument which prevents anyone being in the slightest bit helpful over the phone despite the government's pressure for everyone to transact business by phone or online). I politely point out that this is complete rubbish as I am giving him the information, not the other way round. I am not covered by the Data Protection Act and I'll tell him anything he needs to know. As usual with these brainwashed automatons, he refuses to see logic. The best he can offer is to convert the policy to a "joint" one ........ but that will involve talking to Mrs Journeyman ........ who, of course, is not in!!
So we have to phone back later and, of course that particular gentleman won't be there and we'll have to start all over again...... thus wasting our time, his time, and extra phone calls. And the government really can't see why the country is going down the tubes. It beggars belief.

A Follyville Christmas

Thursday 7 January
Slightly quieter today ..... but still like a chicken shed. Thank goodness I have not had to come in for the past two days. Change my voicemail message to inform callers that as we are now "hot desking" I won't be in the office much to pick up any voicemail messages, so they are better off sending me an e-mail. Survive till lunchtime and then go home. Conclude that four hours is about as much as anybody can reasonably be expected to take of this. Pity the poor buggers who have to be here all day!

Friday 8 January
Snowed in at home.

Monday 11 January
Can't face it - take a flexiday!

A Follyville Christmas

Monday 4 January
First day back after Christmas so everyone is in the office. Luckily I get in early and bag a desk. Pleased to see that our manager comes in later and doesn't get either a desk or a seat. Serves him right for casually going along with such a stupid idea.

One of the executive directors comes past and asks him how everything is going. "Fine," he says, "it's all going smoothly". I shake my head sadly from side to side. "What's the problem?" says executive director. "Everything!" I say. "Oh that's just Tim", says manager, "he's negative about most things". The latter statement is, of course, total slander. I usually like to take a positive stance on life, but it's very difficult to be optimistic about a total disaster!

I survive until lunchtime and then go home. The noise is intolerable. From now on the new office will be referred to as "The Chicken Shed".

A Follyville Christmas

Wednesday 23 December
Unpacking day. Arrive at new office to total chaos. A few computers were up and running ....... but that was all that resembled an office. Lots of loaded crates were lying around waiting to be unpacked. My personal crate, of course, wasn't among them, so I couldn't unload that yet. Our communal team crates were standing there but ..... nowhere to unpack them to. We couldn't put anything at all onto the desks as these have to be used for "hot desking", and the few shelves next to our team area appeared to have been reserved for Building Control. As the computer is the only thing working, I get on and write my blog! I reckon the sinking of the Titanic was better organised than a simple office move.

Receive first e-mail in the new office. Apparently the workmen are in today converting the gents toilets into ladies toilets! - Net result ...... no-one can actually go today. I suggest we all use the car-park which is heavily iced up and could do with a bit of de-icing treatment. This doesn't find much favour with the ladies. The good news - the drinks machine is set to "free vend". The bad news - if you want to take advantage of it you will need the bladder of a camel.

A Follyville Christmas

Tuesday December 22
The start of the big move - packing up day. Which bright spark thought it would be a good idea to move immediately before the Christmas holiday? I suppose they thought that not much work would be done on these two days anyway - apart from all the senior managers, of course, who all had very pressing meetings they had to attend and were extremely conspicuous by their absence from the chaos that was going on all over the office. It was left entirely to the grassroots to decide how to organise things - which was probably for the best, judging by past performance. All went reasonably well until the crates ran out. An e-mail had been sent to all staff making it quite clear that everything had to be packed up and ready to go by the end of the day ........ All very well if you've got crates to pack in .......... a bit difficult if not! Crates had to be labelled with personal and team names to make delivery easier at the other end ....... but the printers were removed at the beginning of the day so no labels could be printed. The computers were taken at lunchtime so no-one could do any normal work. So the afternoon was a case of sitting around reading the paper and doing Sudoku ....... couldn't do anything else. We saved one crate for the Emergency Planning Manager (who obviously had not planned for the move and had disappeared to a meeting all morning). He had not had the foresight to start packing his stuff in advance, and I left him pondering how to get about four crate-loads of stuff into the last remaining crate.

When Christmas came to Follyville

When Christmas came to Follyville it was a total cock-up.
The executive directors should be sent straight to the lock-up.
We had to move from Office One across to Office Two
the same day that the plumber was there taking out the loo!

We didn't have sufficient crates to pack up all our stuff
and by the time we got to Office Two we'd all had quite enough.
We had no seats to sit upon, unless you got in early,
but "more are coming soon", they said, "we hope" ......... "they must do - surely?"

There were no shelves on which to put the content of our boxes.
We'd better dump them all outside to amuse the local foxes.
The noise in here is quite intense. In fact, it's almost nearing
the levels in a poutry shed used for intensive rearing.

I'll have to go and work from home - the buggers have won the battle.
I'll work far more effectively ..... just miss the tittle-tattle!