(11 February 2022). Despair at having a government who do everything wrong has frozen my fingers and brain from this site. Nevertheless, slightly enlivened, by a little sunshine and Google telling me that this site had 13 visitors in January I will be trying to post more frequently.
I have talked about energy before and feasible solutions that make energy costs fairer (apologies for unsophisticated link, don’t know how to make fancy ones)
Today I am puzzled by the scheme to give a council tax “bonus” to those in Bands A to D. Not everyone in an ordinary house is poor- and many poor live in rented accommodation.
It is not too late for Mr Sunak to consider the following alternative.
Every household that has an online account with an energy supplier (and is eligible according to benefits and household income) simply goes to their supplier and claims the money off their bills. They also promise that they are eligible and will go to prison for a month if they cheat. They will also allow all claimants to be on a list for journalists or others to check if well-known people are cheating.
For those without an online account they can go to the post office and fill in the form -sent to their supplier.
(10 November 2021) I apologise to all my readers, a combination of technical issues and despair at the world have kept me away from the keyboard. However, there is so much to talk about my thoughts are near exploding.
So, today I pondered on MPs and other jobs.
Many MPs had a real life before being elected (I exclude the caterpillars whose entire working life is as advisor, lobbyist etc as they attempt to turn into butterflies on election).
Many MPs might not last very long so it is entirely reasonable if they want to keep in touch with their previous working life.
For example, a plumber might want to keep on a few long-term customers, a lawyer might have some ongoing cases and a medical person might want to keep up their skills (as well as doing something useful rather than sitting around). Their interest is known to the public and seems entirely reasonable.
However, Jacob Rees-Mogg for example, who was a highly paid director of a private equity firm (parasites for short), still continues to work for them but does not get paid. This is legal.
But one does wonder how it works.
At the end of the week when he pops his timesheet into the tray in HR do they simply put them in a drawer and wait until he ceases to be an MP?
Or does he not fill in a timesheet and simply work out of the goodness of his heart. I am sure this is the case.
The jobs that I fail to understand are those that they get just because they are MPs.
Companies are not stupid, given the sums they are paying one has to wonder (despite declarations of interest and all that) what they do discretely and behind the scenes to help their paymaster (“I deleted the old messages on my phone to free up space” though given the sums involved they could buy a new gold-plated phone every month).
Thus, I propose that MPs should not be allowed to take second jobs unless it relates to their profession. Rather than setting up a commission or body to do this any method would be open to criticism.
The simple method to make it fair would be as follows.
MPs fill out a form on the .gov website giving the reasons why they want to do the job, what they will earn and how it benefits their constituents and the population by doing it.
The public would then have a monthly vote on whether they should be allowed to take the job. Simple, transparent and reflecting the public’s view.
But they won’t listen.
One still has to hope so a picture reflecting this.
(4th December 2020) As the weather worsens the coming vaccine is good news. The priority order seems reasonable.
However, what does a 40-year-old rich person do? They will be down the list. Nevertheless, I am sure that there will be clinics in Switzerland who will oblige, for a fee.
So here is an idea based on three known facts.
There are wide levels of income inequality in this country.
The vaccination programme will cost a lot of money-eventually paid for by the taxpayers (us).
The rich are in the best position to minimise their tax payments (see Lady Green who owned Arcadia taking a £1.2 billion dividend) a few years ago and paid no tax on it.
Thus, a logical idea- given that people drafted in to give the injections are paid the curious figure of £ 11.32 per jab (call it £15.00 to allow for admin and NI), we could set aside 5% of the jabs for people to pay to jump the queue. I suggest £5,000 which is probably cheaper than going to Switzerland twice. This would pay for 332 ordinary people to have injections.
Assuming 100,000 rich people took up this offer it would pay for over 33 million jabs. Given that the top one percent of the adult population would number over 400,000 people this is a modest proposed take up. (If Lady Green had paid tax of 30% this would have covered nearly another two and a half million jabs).
Suggest this to anyone you know with power and influence; I wonder what the Daily Mail would think?
(28 June 2020) I have been too busy to update recently so apologies to my Chinese readers.
It was interesting this week to see that the government are consulting on a plan for school leavers and other applicants to only proceed with final university applications after their exam results, meaning they would have a clear understanding of the courses for which they qualify.
This is actually a good thing; the news this week has shown the issues with predicted grades ( not always accurate and often biased against the disadvantaged). Further, private schools appear to have been gaming the system (which I would expect if I was paying £38,000 a year to educate a child).
However, if we want to reduce the bias in the admission systems of universities (particularly the so called “top ones”) I propose the following (I will write and tell the government once the consultation is live). It would work like this:
Applicants, knowing their results, would apply for courses, perhaps having a first choice, second choice and so on- maybe no more than ten in total.
If a course is oversubscribed then 90% of the places are allocated entirely at random. This process, being class, race, gender and everything else blind would, at a stroke, ensure a diversity of intake.
“Why?” you cry “90%?”. We do live in an unequal society. I pass no judgement on this. Nonetheless we pretend to be a pure meritocracy and the wealthy game the system through private education and networks. I simply propose making this explicit.
So, 10% of places on any course, at any university, would be for sale on an auction basis, open to all qualified applicants. They do not even need to set up a system- they could simply do a deal with E-Bay.
The rich would still buy their way in but it would be clear and explicit.
And there is more. Money used to buy a course (after admin fee) would be shared amongst the applicants who got in to the course through the ballot-thus giving them a small slice of privilege.
This scheme, which I am sure would be welcomed, would have an interesting effect on private schools who, while, I am sure, still providing a decent education, would lose the hidden advantages for entering higher education; we might see a decline in the sector.
On a different issue – constant despair at the government’s apparent incompetence, which I explained has at its heart the elite’s false perception of “reality”. I was heartened to watch a small talk greatly underpinning this view. It is called “Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality”. Essentially it states that the brain predicts reality (thus optical illusions for example). To me this reinforces my view that governmental incompetence derives from their view of the world being different from us average folk.
So, no kitten this week- watch the clip – 17 minutes of fascination.
(5 June 2020) Finally got my new glasses today. I have been without a lens for three months and had a couple of years of imperfect vision. Seeing the world with crystal clarity is a grim experience.
The global epidemic gives an interesting contrast in the way governments operate. Ours, who have been in control for the last ten years and twenty-seven of the last forty, do not seem to be very good.
All governments have to make decisions on structures, systems, taxation and regulation, amongst other things. Ours barely appear competent in doing these even adequately. At the heart of it is the way the elite live in their own bubble and see the world differently to us- leading to the wrong solutions. If this is the Anglo-Saxon model then I despair.
This week’s cause is to join the Ban Disposable Barbecues Campaign.
People rightly complain that fools take them into the countryside and set the area ablaze by accident. I question why people need to cook something if having a nice day out- they can just make their own sandwiches or prepare delicious tasty salads. Even with kwin-oh-hah if desired.
I even see people using them in the local park- where they are specifically proscribed
However, the EVEN MORE shocking thing is that they do not work well at cooking food- not enough heat is generated for long enough. So, you set fire to the wild and give yourself food poisoning.
Is that a good day out? Chicken Theory in action- people pretending to be cavewomen- “being in touch with nature etc”.
Finally, it is disposed of – more litter. Waste and resources thrown away.
This has to go onto my list of Things to Ban.
The nice people at change.org have a petition on this- do sign it.
(21 May 2020) The less polluted air at the moment is a blessing and has led to record solar power output though it does exacerbate the unusual heat. This week I should have been on holiday, my last one in Europe while we were still friends. Instead- today I fume at the papers (or rather their content).
My outrage commences at the government charging our key healthcare workers, who come from abroad (from October) £624 pa to use the NHS they prop up. They, also, do not pay them enough to be allowed to come here in the first place once we are cast adrift from Europe. This is just obviously wrong and is a manifestation of the severe cognitive dissonance exhibited by leading figures in the government (though I fear they do not suffer inner pain).
However today’s reflection is about warehousing.
We have all read about “The private firm contracted to run the government’s stockpile of personal protective equipment (PPE) was beset by “chaos” at its warehouse that may have resulted in delays in deploying vital supplies to healthcare workers…, The full story is here
What puzzles my simple mind is why a facility as vital as the nation’s (i.e. our) supply of vital equipment is looked after by a private company- a subsidiary of an American company.
The contact is reported to be worth £10.5 million a year. Assuming it is for five years that is a cost of £52.5 million. This was awarded to OM Moviantio, OM being Owens and Minor the American owner of the subsidiary.
OM’s annual report for 2019 stares that their gross margin on revenue is 12.25%
So, assuming nothing special they would expect to get a gross margin (basically profit) of nearly six and a half million pounds over the contract (£6,431,250 to be precise) and in a year would expect £1,286,250.
There is nothing necessarily wrong with profit, I had a nice ice cream yesterday and don’t mind if the maker gets a few pennies from me- I need not eat ice cream. However, if I am in hospital the people treating me have to wear PPE, I need them to wear it and do have an issue with the warehouse company (Logistics to use posh name) making money- even more so if it goes overseas rather than being spent in this country.
The story of the warehouse failure seemed to indicate not employing enough staff (who cost money) and not organising the warehouse correctly- which is not competent.
It is here that the perils of letting private interests run national facilities becomes apparent.
In essence the workers do the work and are managed by the managers. Even if they are paid the “going rate” they have to operate with less resources (as money is taken out for profit). So even if “public” sector was slightly less efficient, for some reason, I fail to see that it could be over 12% worse. “An Efficient business” in the private sector essentially means paying workers the minimum they can get away with.
The most telling quote in the story, from the company was
the company had “executed the agreed plan” to mobilise the stockpile without any delay and in accordance with its contractual obligations.
So, there is no suggestion that the company did anything wrong -demonstrating “The Rule for Private interests taking over Public Functions”
The best and most talented people who work for them are the sales team who are very good at their jobs.
The other team of talents are the contract lawyers and contact managers who tie up the public sector in knots when anything out of the ordinary occurs.
The workers are the ones paid as little as the company can get away with.
Logistics is not quantum computing; it is complex and needs structures and processes; however, there are plenty of people who can do it and there is a whole wealth of a profession behind it.
My actual point is that there must be plenty of trained and capable people in the UK who could run this service as part of the public sector without filching a million or so a year for shareholders to spend on guns and burgers.
I also note that this facility of ours is being sold to a private French company EHDH where they will doubtless spend the million (paid from our taxes) or so on organic free-range snails and fine wines.
I assume the company is run by a very nice man- you can read an interview with him here,
My sad conclusion is total despair that our rulers are so ideologically biased against so many things that are public sector that they put their trust in global companies rather than the British people- I am not even suggesting corruption (which at least would make sense) it is just dogged ideology.
To cheer me up here is a picture at an early attempt at weaponising kittens-note the early death ray on its back.
(9 April 2020) I have just gone through the irritating process of switching energy suppliers, sparking off a number of thoughts.
When a supplier phones or accosts me in the street they always claim to reduce my bill.
They want to know who my current supplier is and then they make up a figure to save me money. However, they (and I have had argument with the street people about this) refuse to tell me how much they are actually charging. It is quite simple- there is a per kilowatt hour cost and a daily standing charge. This is what one needs to know but they won’t tell me.
It is like someone telling me they can save on my supermarket bill by asking me who I shop with without telling me what they charge for apples.
You can find these out if you bother to delve into the depths of a company’s website.
I realised then that the energy market is one from the list of The Bad Things we are lumbered with from Thatcherism.
There are now over 60 companies who “supply” i.e. just bill you, for energy. This complication is bad enough but there are also over 75 companies who offer an energy broking service or switching service to help one through this unnecessary maze.
While I am sure all the individuals who work for these companies are decent human beings and are kind to their pets, a sane and organised society would not need all these- they are an example from the list of Totally Pointless and Unnecessary Occupations.
Energy Board -In practical terms there has to be an organisation that gets the gas and electricity to your home- all the others are pointless. We could, for example, as we live in a democracy (so the government works for us) have a body for each region. Thus, in London we could have the London Energy Board, open, transparent and with some elected representation. Instead London is controlled by EDF a French company for example and in Scotland, Scottish Power is obviously Spanish owned.
Unfair Pricing- We are all aware of climate change and the need to reduce energy consumption. Yet our current system, as well as being almost incomprehensible, discriminates against poorer households.
The best deals come from using direct debits, however, estimating conservatively, about a third of the population live in poor households with low and / or irregular income and cannot set up direct debits. So, they are charged extra for monthly billing or- even more if they have to have a pay meter.
Then there is the standing charge, quite wicked because it is fixed irrespective of usage so that those who use less pay a higher unit rate. It is a regressive charging system.
I did some sums- just for electricity though the same principle would apply to gas. I assume that the Kilowatt pe hour (KWH) rate is 15p. The daily standing charge is 30p (all the companies quote fractions of pennies as it makes it far more difficult to work out with mental arithmetic) and according to OFGEM (a regulator who probably do a good job but would not be needed under democratic control) a typical household uses 4,000 kwh a year.
So, for this household, adding on the standing charge and working out the unit rate, this average household pay 18p for each unit.
A poorer household, using half this amount pay 20p a unit.
A prosperous household – perhaps with an electric jacuzzi, use double the average and pay 16p a unit thus paying 20% less for what they buy.
The justification for the standing charge is that it covers fixed costs of providing the supply- meter, holes in road, pipes etc. Nevertheless, as users are also billed for what is used there is no actual justification in it being so high.
I took my sums and boosted the KWH rate to 17p and reduced the annual standing charge to a modest £12 pa.
This working out keeps all at an actual rate of 17p per unit (the average paid by households using 8,000, 4,000,3,000 and 2,000 collectively) although the bottom group still average 18p, the rest 17p but, significantly only the household with the most consumption pays more (£62.50), the others pay increasingly less with the poorest saving £57.50 pa.
(I show the sums at the end of this piece).
So, the first part of my Practical Manifesto for a Slightly Better Future is Reduce the Standing Charge to a Minimal Figure.
But, as the TV shopping channels say, there is more.
If we want to be an inclusive society, we should recognise that all should have access to basic utilities.
I wondered therefore about Making a Certain Quantity of Energy Free.
I did a sum assuming that all households got 570 free units each year. (an odd figure but for the example this generates as much revenue as the current model -actually £4 more)
I put the unit rate up to 20p.
Calculating this way means that the average price of a unit increases along with consumption, a feature that can only encourage energy saving.
On this model, comparing it with the current example above, the average household get a tiny reduction, the poorest still save over £100 a year (which they would possibly spend on energy) and those who consume the most pay £188 more. Further those who consume the most pay an average unit price of 19p while those who use the least only average 15p.
Practical? Easily – once details are worked out give this would apply both to gas and electricity so consideration would be given to allow for single fuel households and I do not think second homes should be eligible for example. There could also be some recognition of the number of people in a household.
