Baby Madness

Well I wouldn't be doing my patriotic duty if I didn't write something about the arrival of young Prince George. So natually I tried to think what the grumpiest slant was. Should I point out how utterly ridiculous the streaming news saga was that showed us "live pictures" of a door in a wall for about 2 days? Or that "news" had been reduced to asking someone with no possibility of the actual relevant knowledge whether the baby would be a boy or a girl or what said baby's name might be and seemingly placing some weight on said conjured guess? Or that mid-afternoon the day following the royal birth, BBC News were still running the "Breaking News" caption followed by the baby's weight? A nice bit of information, but 24 hours on, rather struggling to still be 'breaking' by definition.

No, I decided panning the hysteria was a little pointless. I'm very happy for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and as a fairly new father myself, I wish them luck. I am rather an ardent monarchist, but thought we might have gone slightly OTT on the coverage. Plus, as you see from the pic above, Private Eye got to the punchline first. It was a shame some rather important other news stories barely made a dent (the charging of a man with the murder of PC Blakelock during the Broadwater riots was deemed far less important than an interview with the cab driver who drove Michael and Carole Middleton to the hospital from Paddington). Indeed I look forward to finding out in a few months time which God-awful news piece the Government's head of communications smuggled out just as they saw the door to the Lindo wing opening. Surely the Coalition must have some A4E stats that needed burying?

I decided instead I should briefly talk about the great baby rip-off. There is nothing special about baby clothes. They are very cute and all that - I'm quite partial to one my boy has which is festooned with little helicopter motifs. But they don't require any technique more complicated than those employed to make children's or adults' clothes; yet they cost the earth. As does anything with the word 'baby' in front of it. Now I think Will and Kate will probably be ok - there should be some hand-me-downs around and they seem to rub along ok without getting to the end of the money before the end of the month. Not having a nanny will save some money too.

However, for the rest of us, it is ridiculous. Now I should confess here to being in the privileged position of having barely had to purchase a thing for my son (thus far). My wife and I both have older sisters with young children and we have been inundated with their bits and bobs that in the majority still look brand new. At times our dining room (read: store-room) looks like a pop-up showroom for prams and buggies. We seem to have about 40 (this may be a slight exaggeration) different "travel systems", each with its own useful USP, and none with all of them. But not everyone is this lucky.

If you have to go out and buy a brand new "travel system", and it is important you know they are called that, make sure you call your bank manager first. Clearly some bright spark realised nobody was going to pay north of a grand for "a buggy" or "a pram", but a "travel system", well that sounds like it could take you to the moon. And it should for that money. They're just a baby-sized bucket, some wheels and a frame. How on earth can they cost so much? Perhaps it is because the producers know most sane people will try to find a second hand one that due to the rate babies grow out of their stuff, will likely still be in pretty good nick. So they have to get their pound of flesh from the initial purchaser.

Either way, NCT sales and generous hand-me-downs and share-arounds aside, the prices for most of this mini fare is astounding. Same products but aimed for the baby market which just multiply in price. Small water bottle? £5. Oh, it's for a baby - you should have said. Now it's a small baby bottle, and it's £10. Random piece of patterned cotton towelling? £1. Oh you want to use it to mop up sick. Welll in that case it is now a patterned baby muslin - just £5 a pop. It's airplane prawn sandwich mentality. You have a captive audience so charge them what you want. And we seem to just suck it up.

Weddings are no different. I remember a friend of mine did some research when he got married. He called various companies asking for products/services/hires and then got his fiancé to call and ask for the same items but with the word "wedding" inserted. Everyone increased their prices. A ballroom at a hotel hired for a party? 20% less than the same room when hired for a wedding reception. A DJ to play at the venue for the party? 30% less than he quoted to cover the identical wedding. Worst of all the baker who tripled their charges when the 3 storey cake became a 3 storey wedding cake. Overpricing in this country and our seeming passive acceptance. It's enough to leave you, like the cake, in tiers.

The Postman Used to Ring Twice

So the Royal Mail is thinking of scrapping its '2 tier' system for delivery in favour of a single 2 day service. Super. In other news… Labour are going to balance the budget and Andrew Mitchell is going to be the guest of honour at the Association of Police Authorities Christmas Ball.

Well those aren't entirely accurate comparisons. Thrasher Mitchell clearly isn't going anywhere near the plebs, sorry, the plods, if he can help it. However Labour certainly are going to promise to balance the budget just as Royal Mail may promise to fulfil the new pledge of a 100% 2 day delivery service for a price below first class. And they too are telling porky pies like you read about. Yup, you would have to be a moron (as the current polls tell us over a 1/3 of the country are) to believe either of these preposterous claims.

First class post used to be a same or next day delivery. Now it is not even guaranteed next day. So the service has gone downhill. Where has the price gone? Yup, you guessed it - through the roof. Second class post now averages out somewhere in the region of a week to deliver. Oh, I know you will still find the odd letter now and again that will be delivered quickly, but it is the exception, not the rule.

My point is, Royal Mail will be allowed to scrap the vestiges of the next day delivery and in compensation we will receive a lower price for the new universal mail. For all of 35 seconds. Royal Mail will then be granted another so-massive-it-can't-even-see-inflation-in-its-rear-view-mirror-as-it-laughs-all-the-way-to-the-bank price hike in the cost of the new 'first class' stamp. Because if the fastest you can pay for something to be delivered is now 2 days, this new 'used-to-be-called-second-class class' is their de facto 'first class'.

Yup. And then, you will notice that as the complaints start rolling in that the 2 day guarantee isn't being hit they'll point you to the very small print that states they'll try really really hard to deliver within 2 days, but if they don't make it, it's the thought that counts. What a load of old cock. Quite simply, if Royal Mail are allowed to do this all we will get is a worse service that within a very short space of time will cost more.

Why do I hold such a cynical view? Because my friends, I like many of you have sat in my house, watched the postman walk up the drive and without so much as a knock on the door let alone 2 rings on the bell, post a "sorry you weren't in, please drive miles to collect the mail someone has paid the correct postage to have delivered to your door, oh, and visit only during the hours most inconvenient to you" card (they've shortened it to the bare-faced lie, "sorry you weren't in") and fuck off on his merry way. It is a crap service run with no care, no integrity and no thought for serving the customer or for being allowed to wear the royal insignia.

And by means of a vicious non-sequitor to finish, just so you know where I am on it, Apple's new maps for iPhone is about as much use as mudflaps on a tortoise...

Utilitarian Utilities - For the Greatest Good (Profits)

Today's gripe is with the private sector. I've decided I've been bashing the public sector for too long, and a bit of even-handedness wouldn't go amiss. So I'm going to look at utilities, specifically the telecoms and energy sectors and see how these consumer reliant industries treat their customers and why...

I'm told I'm due an upgrade. No, there is no cause for alarm for Mrs Law Abiding Citizen - it's not that type of upgrade. I don't normally leave matters of such importance as marriage and divorce to a telesales operator from O2. If I had the option I'm not convinced I'd leave matters of such importance as my mobile phone in their hands.

You see I'm far from impressed with my mobile phone operator. In fact the same goes for my mobile phone. I think I am probably not alone. Part of the problem is I don't know at whom to direct my vitriol - Apple or O2. I'm not sure if my iPhone drops signal or if my network drops signal. As they're different companies, they both seem pretty content to blame the other.

Unfortunately, I think I've been a customer of pretty much every provider and it appears a universal truth that they're all bastards. Indeed I stuck with Orange for so long in no way because they were competent - far from it - but because I was able on several occasions to say "I've been loyal to you so you owe me." It rarely worked.

I cannot be the only person who would like simply to scream at these huge and often useless companies about my phone hanging up a call and telling me the network is busy (which I knew - I was using it). If they spent a little more time investing in a proper UK-wide network signal rather than trying to put more computing power into their phones I would be a happy bunny. You see much of the time I simply have a very pretty handheld game and music playing calculator cum calendar. But I actually wanted a phone. Unfortunately I'm too hooked on the fleeting moments of real connectivity (and Baby Monkey) that I don't want to go back to my Nokia 3210.

That is also despite the fact that those old phones that actually made phone calls all still work, regardless of their being dropped eleventy times and being full of 10 years' of dust. If they could all stop trying desperately hard to make the first phone to be able to drive your car whilst simultaneously orally pleasuring you (an interesting concept) and remember that phones are primarily designed to call people, it might be a step forward. However, increasing network coverage is the job of the network providers, and as long as they're all comfortable offering only about 50% of the country proper coverage we're screwed. As long as none of the big telecoms companies decides to spend on improving the service, we the consumer, are stuck with a choice between several almost identically bad, identically priced network providers. There's no need for them to spend on coverage if their sales aren't suffering. So short of protesting with great no-mobile days, unless the Government steps in and makes those it allows to use our airwaves and ionosphere play fair for all, not much will happen.

Onto the energy lot then… Much is being made in the media, in between jaunts of Fox Hunting and Where's Werritty?, of the totally unexpected and almost simultaneous price hikes in all 6 of the large energy providers in the UK. Now I'm going to stop short of suggesting Government pricing guides and windfall taxes on huge profits. That's mainly because I don't think it would ever happen and I'm a free market kind of guy. It's just that I'm not convinced many utility companies really operate within free markets. A little more attention paid to pricing would help, but ultimately the system is not set up for smaller energy firms to be able to compete.

One simple example is the renewables sector which is being stimulated by Government funding. The Government pays out (or rather forces energy firms to pay for it who pass the cost onto us) Feed-In Tariffs for renewable energy producers to get money into the sector. Making renewables viable by subsidies to install costly new technology is meant to be the way to attract research and development money. This R&D then should provide ways of lowering the costs in the sector thus making it economically viable as a stand-alone means of energy production.

However, the electricity being produced is sold at a paltry few pence (3.1p typically) per unit, compared to an average of about 15p or so that we pay whoever for the juice to power our lights. The Government could vastly reduce the amount that gets paid out in subsidies (and therefore gets passed on to us) if it made the system pay small producers fairly. The logistics are more complicated with electricity storage and distance for electricity to travel being key concerns, but it is workable. There is just no appetite for it in the big 6 - it will provide real competition and make them stop fixing their identically artificially high prices. There won't be real competition in price until the market is properly opened up. 

So, Government intervention seems to be the only real option here. Well I'm sure npower and the rest are quaking in their boots at the toothless Ofgem and likewise for Vodafone and Ofcom. I'm not convinced anything can come of it, so seeing as we're in the realms of the unlikely, I have another suggestion…

We are constantly told (lied to) by our mobile and energy providers that they are doing the best they can to get you their utility at the cheapest price possible. They are at pains to point out which of their million tariffs suits you the best (seeing as we can all be pigeonholed). Yet when it comes to renewal it seems it is always cheaper elsewhere, often even on a different tariff within the same company. So if these companies really mean it, put their money where their mouths are. I'm convinced they live off incorrect tariffing. Unless you never put a foot out of line and remain in the very small bounds of your tariff, you get stung; be it having to call 0845 business numbers (we've been here before) which are never covered, or having to put a wash on in the middle of the day, rarely will you not get charged for going over and also have to pay extra for a utility limit you didn't completely use up.

If these companies really want to help us, why not abandon getting us to choose from the myriad of tariffs but pleasantly inform us each month which tariff they put us on - the one that came out cheapest for that month's usage. So, the month where your office phone line goes tits up and you use 6000 minutes on your mobile, you don't get a huge bill; you get the unlimited calls plan, but next month when it goes back to normal, you're back on 'penguin' or whatever they call a normal usage plan. I know that someone will point out that it's not in the utility companies' best interests to do that, but they can't have their cake and eat it.

If they want to be able to advertise that they're trying to help, then make them use my plan. Let poor old granny warm her cockles over the winter freeze without having to bankrupt herself, and not have to pay the same rate for lots of energy through a milder than expected February. It is clear enough we can't predict the weather or the markets, why must we insist that everyone predicts how much of each utility they are planning on using? If however they don't want to be honest and actually help us lower our prices; if they wish to say they keep their tariffs complicated and narrow to profit from our inability to stick to them, then make them drop the sanctimonious 'here to help' bullshit and just say they're 'in it for your money - trying to keep you just rich enough to afford to stay alive and heat your home'...

What Goes Up Might Come Down

The price of Brent Crude is tumbling. We should be celebrating, no? I for one shall not be digging about in the garage for my spare jerry cans to fill up on cheap fuel down at my local forecourt. Why? Because the price hasn't changed.

It will have come as a surprise to nobody that finally both Ofgem and the Federation Internationale d'Automobile have both this year investigated the prices charged by fuel suppliers compared to the price of their raw product, with the latter writing to the EU to complain in June.

Ofgem recently announced that for the first time it has evidence that energy companies are hiking their prices faster when costs have risen than they lowered them when costs fell. Wow. Who knew? It does make one wonder what Ofgem do with the rest of their days.

The two most obvious industries whose profits depend on the rise and fall of crude oil are our energy providers and our fuel providers; in many cases much of a muchness. It would take an averagely computer-literate ten year old to find a graph depicting the rise and fall of say, Brent Crude and the prices on the forecourts for the last few years. I borrowed such a ten year old and he found me these: petrol (here) oil (here). Fear not, I have returned him.

Raw product (oil) accounts for only about 1/3 of our pump price. We have the Government to thank for about 65% in tax (is there an easier way to collect tax?), a percent or two to the retailer and the remainder to the refiner. Numbers vary by business model, but it's around there.

The peaks and troughs of the price graphs certainly roughly marry up in shape, but do they in size? You may remember everyone crying when petrol went through £1 a litre in late 2007. Crude oil was at about 80 dollars a barrel. It peaked in mid 2008 at just shy of 147 dollars when petrol prices were about £1.20. Then when crude oil fell to sub 40 dollars a barrel the motorist had brief respite at just below the £1 mark again, when ratios would have had it nearer 70p. Recently we've been up in the 125 dollars a barrel region and the average forecourt price has been over £1.40 or thereabouts.

Now we have an oil price approaching the 100 dollar mark, so we can safely assume the price should be tumbling with it. Now whenever there is a price rise in oil, it gets passed on essentially instantaneously, yet when there is a drop we hear excuses. I'm sure companies do hedge on prices and buy in advance, so if there is a sharp drop they will be selling petrol or energy fuelled by more expensive oil they bought before the drop. However, by that model when prices of oil rise there should be stockpiles of cheaper oil to keep prices lower. But you and I know it doesn't work that way.

Price of unleaded at the recent peak at my local BP when oil was 126 dollars? 136.9p per litre. Price last week with an oil price of 105 dollars? 136.9p per litre. But we're all British so we bend over and take it without so much as a trembling of the lower lip. You wonder what the point is of having an Ombudsman who can stare such sharp dealing in the face and ignore it day in, day out. It's enough to make you want to take the train, if it wasn't so crap and expensive too... 

Divorced of Logic

Now call me a bluff old traditionalist, but I thought marriage was generally meant to be an arrangement that is romantically motivated. Now I know that it doesn't always end up all peaches and cream, but the manner in which some more public marriages fail has me thinking if these days it isn't rather more all about cash. I've had this little bee in my bonnet for a while, and a casual glance at a tabloid which found its way into the middle of the bondu (from whence I have just returned) has awakened the sleeping dog.

My bone to pick is with divorce settlements. Now there are several cases I'll probably mention here, but I think I shall tap into the populist media first for a change. A days old and well-thumbed copy of the Sun informed me that about a week or two ago Alex Reid and Katie Price (nee Jordan) announced the end to their calamitous 11 month marital union. Ok, no great surprises there - I would imagine it could be hard making a marriage work with TV cameras in your home 24/7. However, as much as Ms Price's way of life might not fit into my idea of model citizen (no pun intended), I feel rather sorry for her. Why on earth would she apparently need to take precautions to safeguard her money from a man she has had a relationship with for less time than it takes her to read her own book? They have no children. All the money is hers. So what's the problem?

Of course the problem is that this curious little fellow is demanding a cool £2 million to sling his hook. And in today's crazy world, there are enough imbeciles out there misreading enough imbecilic laws to make that a genuine concern for Tits McGee. And we're not even in California, where they are proper mental (just ask John Cleese). Yes, today we shall investigate the worrying trend for staggeringly large divorce payouts; the good, the bad and the downright ugly.

There actually won't be many good ones, incidentally, so don't hold your breath. First let's look at the ridiculous. We'll start with Katie Price. Her husband brought sweet Fanny Adams to the marriage in financial terms. She is already a multimillionaire in her own right. They were together for 11 months. They have no children. To my mind, he should probably just jog on. Any loss of earnings he might want to claim are not down to her as he could perfectly well keep up his day job of hitting people. If he took time off, it's his prerogative, not her fault. In addition he will no doubt have future earnings as a D list celebrity, entirely down to his association with Price (thanks very much). How long before Saturday night sofa dwellers are watching him on Britain's Got Strictly Come Jungle on Ice? However, I fear Price will end up paying the sponger off for fear of negative publicity and what some barking judge somewhere might decide.

Now let us look at the breakdown of John Cleese's third marriage. His first two ended in an undisclosed settlement with the gorgeous Connie Booth (of Fawlty Towers fame) and £2.5 million with Barbara Trentham. He had a daughter with both actresses and is still friends with them today. He was then married to Alice Faye Eichelberger for 16 years. They had no children. The vast majority of his opus was completed before they ever met (he was in his early 50s when they wed). The money that he earned since their marriage was down to royalties on work previously done, his investments and other work that depended on his theatrical skills. He did not require Ms Eichelberger to stop earning or to look after a home or children (though she was unemployed and living in a council house when they met - so despite the relative luxury that one can live in on the state, let us not imagine even if she did stop it was all that much money). Whilst they have been married a long time, what Cleese had and shared with her was still all down to him. Verdict? He handed over more than half of his net value. If nothing else, I imagine his two former wives are a little surprised (and his two children who just had their inheritance halved). Absolutely barking - thank you California.

The justification for handing over £12 million in cash and property and £600,000 a year for 7 years (presumably to get the poor girl back on her feet again)? Probably the best bit. The rather dubious Fiona Shackleton argued that because Cleese was so rich and famous, Eichelberger had become used to "being entertained by royalty and dignitaries in castles." It rather makes me want to throw up. It's the same crap argument that the odious Heather Mills tried to used in her divorce from Sir Paul McCartney (who was represented by Shackleton; on the other side this time). Since when did being used to being spoiled entitle you to a lifetime of spoiling courtesy of someone else's bar tab? It's a wonderful ruse - I must be kept in the standards to which I have become accustomed. Perhaps this shouldn't just extend to divorce law. Perhaps anyone who has ever had any money should be safeguarded from losing the privileges it once bought. Only who would pay for that? Of course, it only works as a tinpot argument because there is some (soon to be) poor dolt to foot the bill in divorce law.

You might be thinking around this time "well, they're bloody rich anyway, so who cares?" I hope not, because whilst I wouldn't be angry with you, I would be disappointed. The entire legal system is predicated on the idea that we are all equal under the law. Why should a rich man be penalised because he is rich with a heavy settlement? Would you make no fuss if it was the poor man who was worse off under the same law because of his lack of wealth? So you see the general theme here - if you don't bring anything to the party, why should the host keep the party going for you long after you've been thrown out?

So those are a couple of the worst of the cases. There is also the story of the lottery winner having half his windfall claimed by an ex-wife due to not having a clean break divorce. How one could justify her contribution to his £1 expenditure that bought the fortuitous ticket I cannot imagine. However, his lawyers obviously convinced him that he should settle out of court for a staggering amount because they know there would be a good chance of losing in our screwed up judicial system. This after he had offered £1 million of his £10 million or so to a trust fund for his daughter - refused of course because the morally reprehensible mother just wanted cash for herself. I could go on, but you get the idea.

If you meet, fall in love, get married and have children one of you will probably stay home to raise that family and run the household. If you divorce many years later, the stay-at-home parent deserves a share of the couple's net worth. I cannot fault that logic, and don't think one should. This is how we end up with the John and Beverley Charman case for example. The owner of Axis and his wife did exactly that. On divorcing, she was awarded 37% of his net worth, to date the largest UK divorce settlement at £48 million. Now the only possible argument here is the percentage. The argument against 50/50 splits or indeed splits even this big is familiar within the superstar world of sports and film.

Charman argued most of that wealth, though admittedly being created from scratch with them both playing their part, was down to his exceptional contribution. I feel I actually agree with him - it's more likely he's pretty good at his job than just long term lucky. Mrs Charman certainly did nothing wrong, but tables turned, would she have built up a £130 million empire? The judge surmised when deciding in Mrs Charman's favour "in the narrow, old-fashioned sense, that perspective is understandable, if somewhat anachronistic. Nowadays it must attract little sympathy."

This is where it gets controversial. Siding with Charman (who offered about 15% - £20 million) rather goes back on the whole being treated differently because you're rich thing. If the Charman's were poor would we begrudge Mrs Charman 37%, or even 50%? I imagine not, in either case. But you can understand where Charman is coming from. As he said, the offer of £20 million is an amount "impossible for any reasonable person to spend in their lifetime." Michael Jordan paid his wife over £80 million. She's probably crap at basketball. Marcia Murphy probably can't hold a tune, but Neil Diamond still paid her over £75 million. In cases like these, you can't help but feel for the earner. 

So where does this leave us? Now that the courts also seem to recognise long term relationships as if they were marriages, the 'not getting married' ruse is out of the window too. So I think it probably leaves us in the world of the pre-nup. A shady but clearly now necessary concept in the world of marriage for profit or profit by marriage (depending on intent). I imagine asking your betrothed to sign one is up there for romance killers with asking them to pop down to the local GUM clinic for a 10,000 mile check. However, I think that in the modern day it is probably a sensible way forward. Sad, that. Unfortunately, in today's world where £20 million isn't enough and the legal pendulum has swung far too far the other way, is there any real alternative? It's your future, and that of your potential unborn children you're protecting.

It is gratifying therefore to see the UK Supreme Court ruling in favour of honouring them in general with their verdict in October 2010 in the Granatino vs Radmacher case. The caveats are sensible enough if not totally binding: the agreements may give great weight to any divorce case providing the terms were fair and entered into knowingly and of one's own free will (the usual jazz). They retain the right to waive them on a case by case basis, especially where it is deemed unfair to the children of the marriage. So hopefully here endeth the UK's hold on title of Divorce Capital Europe, and common sense can reign for once.

I guess we shall see; no large UK divorce case having been put before the courts since. The judiciary have certainly left themselves enough wriggle room to ignore the logic of any given pre-nup case. One can but hope. And that hope is only there for those with enough assets or confidence in future assets to deem a pre-nup necessary. For the rest of us we had better wish love is eternal, because otherwise, you're probably screwed.

TIA: This is Africa

As my more avid readers are probably aware, I am in deepest, darkest Africa, specifically the East. It is not my first time. All told by my next return I will have spent the best part of 4 months here, predominantly with work. Some elements of this continent are fantastic. It is up there for vistas, in general I find the people to be very friendly, and the weather certainly puts London in the shade. However, it is not all roses down here. What could be wrong, you might ask in a land where you can watch the red sun casting the last rays of the day across a verdant savannah, teaming with incredible wildlife? And all this wearing shorts and a slight sunburn, sipping a cool beer putting you in mind of Harry Flashman's era whilst most of your compatriots are complaining about the cold, wet weather or the latest tube strike?

Well now I put it like that I feel perhaps this isn't an entirely warranted rant, but for all Africa's relative advantages, there is an absolute that I feel needs dealing with. I am not going to rant about the Heath Robinson infrastructure, the binary-temperatured showers or the dust. The dust, the dust. Nope, I guess it all adds to the charm - if you wanted to avoid all that there is always Slough. Their roads are fine, I hear. No, what has always nagged at me about my stays here is one thing. It takes a moment to lose and a lifetime to gain. I am talking about trust.

Now before I launch into the meat of all this, take it for what it is. I have not been to every country in Africa, but it would not take a wild leap to suggest the problem to which I am alluding also permeates many other nations of equally limited economic might, African or otherwise. So, you may call my points generalisations, but so prevalent have I seen them in my not inconsiderable time here, and confirmed by many of the people I have travelled with, I think them fair in at least the most local sense of the East African nation I am currently in, and perhaps further afield.

I am probably no different from the next man in not liking being taken for a ride. The one thing that exercises me the most out here is the feeling that you are being ripped off. Now whilst the amounts you are talking about are often relatively small for a Westerner, the all-pervasive nature of the big rip-off leaves a very sour taste in the mouth. I can't help feeling like the golden goose. Falling foul (sorry) of that fable I think is one of the great issues with Africa.

I see short-termism in the actions of so many out here. Prices have a very obvious Western or local tag, and the variation can run into the hundreds of percents. Prices of drinks in the same bar on the same night will often vary with what they reckon they can get away with, and quite often the cash doesn't quite make it to the till. Giving change is often just an option, and it tests all your Englishness to mutter an embarrassed request for the right change, perhaps, please? It all seems to me to be part of an economic plan that must be "we don't know how long you'll be here, or whether you'll come again, so we'd better sting you good the first time."

As an example I played golf with a couple of friends today on our day off. The escalatory nature of the pricing is not confined to Africa - it is very much the Ryanair way. Golf? 1000 blatts. But don't forget the club hire. Or the caddie. Or the balls. Now the final price was still fine, but I rather hear prices delivered as a solid stab of pain than as death by a thousand tiny cuts. It was however, the amusing golf ball calculator that typified my sentiments on the place. You had to guess at the start how many balls you might need and then essentially rent them - you weren't buying them because they took them all back at the end. But buy too few and develop a hook and you'll just be walking the back nine. So you overcompensate and end up renting balls that never left the bag (I was uncharacteristically accurate off the tee today). Now if I just had to pay for lost balls I would understand (it's how the real world works), but instead you paid for something you never got. It left you feeling a little put out even though the round was relatively inexpensive. Regardless of it still being only a couple of pounds here or there, the principle still applies. The problem is, when you see it all around you, you lose trust in the system. Once that is gone, it is very hard to repair, and you begin to assume you are never getting a straight deal.

I wonder if it doesn't spread from the top, down. Countless times in the past, and unfortunately in the present, you see African countries brought to their knees as leader after leader moves into power only to desert the people he supposedly championed in favour of lining his pockets. Now this is again not restricted to this continent, but it is perhaps at its most prolific here.

We know it matters to me on a point of principle, but why does this matter to the country or continent? I think it is because from the outside corruption is viewed as the norm here. It is the feeling that everyone is on the take. Now that certainly isn't true - there are undoubtedly straight people here, but there are enough bad apples to tar the whole applecart (terrible mixed metaphor). The wider problem though, is that I don't believe the issue of trust will just cost them the tourist here and there who will not return. It is that until Africa can lose the image of corruption, I feel real investment in its future is unlikely, so dependent as investment is on trust. In that way, I believe this fault is perhaps the biggest barrier to development as a continent. So, for the time being, the only people playing the long game here are the countries (like China) or major corporations who bring their business to the country but solely to their own operations, exploiting the natural resources and withdrawing most of the resulting funds before you can say "investment in the community." For my money, if Africa wishes to join the developed world, they must learn the value of telling it straight.

Make It Like a G6

Now I understand where the Rt Hon Jesse Norman is coming from; no-one likes being taken for a ride. However, I rather think the Government asking for money back from business when they realise they have been swindled (and contributed almost entirely to said swindling), is a little rich and probably the wrong tack. I am talking, of course, about Private Finance Initiatives (PFIs). Now I shan't recount what has already been said about them. For a precis of this week's offerings since the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee Report, you could glance at these (here, here and here). Indeed, for Mr Norman's plea to business to hand back their profits, just click here. Or you could just take it as wrote that they have turned out to generally be a monumental economic disaster.

The PFIs were an ok idea given the correct application. Of course, the majority of these PFIs were signed duting the last Labour Government, so there was little chance of that. Nope, instead of considering PFIs as alternatives, it appears many authorities were railroaded into accepting PFIs with little thought to value for money. Why? Because Labour liked the idea of being able to throw money at the public sector without having to spend up front. In essence, to Labour, the PFI was a massive credit card. Not only could they spend loads of money on the public sector to show how lovely they were, they wouldn't even had to pay for it, and it didn't appear on their bank statement. Yes folks, you'll never guess what - the nice people of the private sector offered to cover all our debts with the little proviso that we have to make a few monthly instalments to pay it all off. Sound familiar? Yup, welcome again to Ocean Finance. Unsurprisingly, it has turned out a teensy bit more expensive than Gordy and co might have thought when they tuned into channel 888 to deal with the economy.

Legal bills alone ran into millions and the Government locked themselves in to pay off projects well after they became obsolete (they being thankfully Labour, unfortunately also said projects). Now the economic flaws in the PFI argument have been laid bare for all to see, but I wanted to talk about an element of it that rears its ugly head all over. It is the combination of politicians pushing through purchases with drastic economic ramifications that they do not fully (or at all) understand and the help in these debacles of some pretty dubious lawyers.

Now I don't know who works in the Government's legal teams, but I have some suspicions. Firstly, not one of my many friends who have gone on from university to become lawyers talked about one day working for the Government. Nope, it was all Linklaters this and Freshfields that. Maybe the work is dull, maybe the remuneration is not attractive enough. Either way, 'Magic Circle', they ain't, which leads me to suspect the Government may not always get the top of the class. This rash assumption is backed up anecdotally though, and in quite some volume. I have lost count of the number of times I have heard of Government bodies (local and national) being tied into poor contracts, or of contracts that are seen through even when it finally dawns on people they are useless, because it would cost more to cancel. For one specific area where the Government really excel themselves look no further than Defence Procurement. Anyone want a second aircraft carrier? How much was Eurofighter meant to cost? I could go on, but you get the idea.

My point is twofold. Firstly for the Coalition and Mr Norman. Don't cry over spilt milk. Certainly point out the milk to everyone, and show everyone the evidence that it was the last lot's fault it got spilt. But if you genuinely think the companies who recognised PFIs for the gravy train they were might or should give back their profits, you're barking up the wrong tree. It certainly wouldn't happen the other way round. No, instead, take the lessons identified, and try to turn them into lessons learned.

For everyone else. If you want to make your millions, find something the Government want, whether it's hospitals, houses or ostrich feathers. Spend all you can afford on a proper lawyer to draw up the contract - it'll be the best money you've ever spent. As you kick back and relax in your Gulfstream 6, mopping your brow with £50 notes, remember who told you so; because, late, over estimate, not to spec, not fit for purpose, whatever crap you turn out, it seems for the moment at least, the Government is still paying out. Just get in on the act before Dave and co get round to hiring someone competent to write their contracts.

Economies of Scale?

Today I'm going to bang on about relative scales of budgetary tightness. It's a phenomenon I have noticed over the past few years, and one that has been brought to light in particular by a comment I heard today. I think it is easiest to explain by means of an example what I mean:

If you're buying a house, people move prices up and down in the thousands. So a bit of a move in the market and Johnny Estate Agent proclaims the asking price for the house you're looking at has gone up £5,000 or £10,000. No-one bats an eyelid. Once you're up over £200,000 (and I'm talking London prices not UK averages so it's a perfectly reasonable price to discuss), we deal in big numbers. Big. And we're fine with it. No-one puts a house on the market for £273,425. Maybe £275,00, but once we go above £300,000, we only deal in £10,000 multiples.

Then you buy a second hand car, and you might be in the £10,000 region. You'll probably look to get a bit off. You'll feel quite good about yourself if you get it for £9,000, and not too bad if it's £9,700 after the dealer insists it's a bargain.

When you buy a new washing machine, you wait for the January sales if the old one can last that long. Then you can get a £400 one for £300.

When you're in a restaurant, you feel comfortable ordering a bottle of passable Rioja for £20 that retails in Oddbins for £7, but you'd feel miffed if the same bottle was the cheapest on the menu at £24.

Now the obvious link here is percentages - this much hasn't escaped me. It is the idea that if you have got a certain percentage off, it was a good investment. Whether or not you really needed it, or whether it was correctly priced in the first place is rather a secondary consideration. I believe this is the entire idea behind the January sales.

However, what still escapes me, is how the same person can make all the above transactions in a year and only concentrate on the percentages. The £300,000 house moving up to £310,00 is a 3.33% price rise. The discount on the car from £10,000 to £9,700 is 3%. The January sales washing machine reduced from £400 to £300 is a 25% discount. The more marked up Rioja from £20 to £24 is a 20% increase.

Ultimately it all comes out of the same bank account. Just because the numbers are bigger with the house, so the percentages smaller why consider each £1 more you spend there any less important than on the car transaction? If there was a small scratch on the rear bumper you'd be asking for £100 off, so why only deal in £1,000s or £5,000s on the house. That said, if one of two similar washing machines was £30 dearer, that would probably make your decision for you. So maybe the scratch on the car should be £130 off, or £70 off? But then if we can go one way or another for £30 on the washing machine, what's £4 on a bottle of wine? Yet people get tighter the smaller the amount of money involved, yet when you talk about large chunks of their life savings, they willingly spend like a Labour Government in a pre-election budget.

I'm not saying it is wrong that people deal in larger numbers as the asking price of the item increases relatively. I just find it interesting that even when it's all coming out of the same pot, the same person who bought the house for £10,000 more than he was planning and didn't really mind, who just bought a plate of £3 chips he didn't eat, still won't buy an iPhone app he really wants for £1.79, because "it's a bit expensive"...

Merry Christmas and an Expensive New Year

Quite a short one here, but thought with the backdrop of people complaining at tax rises it might be nice to put it all in perspective. No, I'm not planning on highlighting the plight of the poorer in far flung countries, it doesn't really soothe people. It's too far displaced, them and us, so one needs to present something closer, but worse. Actually it is not even someone else's plight in a slightly worse position I am trying to compare; no, instead I am comparing the causes of the belt tightening.

Now we know about the VAT rise, which I blogged about here, and the New Year increase in fuel duty which have been met with complaint. We know the VAT increase has added just over 2% to some items. The fuel duty perhaps another 1%. So fuel is the biggest riser at about 3%. We also have the general budget cuts which average out at about 5% per annum over the course of the Parliament. Now these numbers are quite small, but of course they must hurt a little and sometimes a lot. I shall not dispute this. I filled up my new grown-up family car yesterday and parted with nearly £100. I nearly cried. I suggested to the cashier that at least Dick Turpin wore a mask, but the blank expression informed me my rapier wit was lost on him. My experience will naturally be dwarved by some people's who are closer to the breadline and more dependent on newly dearer items. However, are these the real culprits behind the New Year's feeling of destitution?

I would say not. As, for example, the employees of the BBC who eat in the corporation's canteen found out these last couple of weeks, sellers all over the country have been hiking prices in the New Year. Perhaps to make up for the loss of profits on all those lovely Christmas sales prices, or just to regain equilibrium after the joyous and giving nature of the festive period, prices have taken a sharp rise. Perhaps they though nobody would notice because the holidays disrupted our thought processes. The BBC example is typical. The BBC canteen has increased prices by up to 25% on some items and on average 12.3%. Look around you, prices are soaring as people use the excuse of VAT or an increase in costs to mask massive price hikes...

O2 text message - up 20%
T Mobile text message - up 10%
Fitness First membership - up 25%
London Congestion Charge - up 25% (after a 60% rise a few years back)

Most of those were all nabbed from the Torygraph, but just check your bills for more examples - train fares (despite terrible service), energy bills, food prices, you name it. In particular it is the smaller items where this rounding up is more prevalent. One can quite easily add 2 or 4% to £1000. It's harder to do it to 10p, so screw it, make it 20%, what's 2p in total between friends? A bucketload when multiplied by the number of texts and users.

So, remember when you hear people complaining about a 2% VAT-induced rise or budget cuts, that that's not the full story; it's just the one that is easiest to score political points with, because it is the one the Government control. Next time you feel the need to lash out at the forces making you poorer, think perhaps of the energy giants increasing prices to boost bumper profits rather than a Government trying to repay someone else's debt to stop a nation going bankrupt.

A Rubbish Christmas

You may already have read here my not so favourable view of local Government, and in particular here, of the waste collection services. Apparently the culprits have not all read my rantings, spread the word and mended their ways. In fact, I'm not entirely sure they have even been reading my blog.

You may be in one of the areas that have not had rubbish collection for up to 4 weeks. If you do, you have my sympathies. And probably rats. The silver lining though will be the 1/12 rebate of the £1000-2000 or so you pay a year in council tax for this service. Ah, if only it were that simple. As usual, a quick glance at the real world (private sector) reveals the imaginary one to be just that - a fantasy for them, or a nightmare for us. Unfortunately, as previously discussed, it is not one we can do much about.

If you employed a private company to come and get your rubbish, even the most rudimentary contract would have got you your rebate over the Christmas collection failure. If you don't do what you are paid for in the real world, you don't get paid. People take their business elsewhere. But again, you can't go to a better local council to provide your services, you can't withdraw your money and go private. Nope, you're stuck with it, you can't haggle for a discount or move your custom when they turn out to be crap. How much would private traders pay for that kind of lock-in? Gotta love the system.

Yes, drives, street corners and alleyways across the country are littered (I couldn't resist) with bags of uncollected rubbish (though they could hardly be littered with collected rubbish). Many local councils stopped collections because their binmen might slip in the snow and ice. In work boots. I have a pair, they are to walking on ice what a Land Rover is to driving on it. So, here we are with no collections for weeks.

The incredible incapacity of local Government to carry out even the most basic of tasks was typified by one Kevin Mitchell, Birmingham City Council's assistant director of fleet and waste management: "It is a triple whammy. This all happened during Christmas, with three Bank Holidays and 420,000 extra turkey carcasses to collect." Yes Kevin. Sometimes it snows at Christmas. It might be an idea to have some form of bad weather plan, if you are a multi-million pound service supplier. The calendar is also reasonably predictable. Or totally. Even if we grant that until his trade union sent him his 2010 calendar for Christmas 2009 he didn't know Christmas Day, Boxing Day and New Year's Day would all fall on weekends, that still gave him a year. Oh, and as with all the Christmas Days for quite some time, lots of turkeys will be eaten, but it's still just lunch or dinner. People don't eat it as well as their 'normal' meal so there is not vastly more waste than any other lunch or dinner really.

I think we've pretty much flogged this one to death, but you just know that for all the talk of lessons learned that we will undoubtedly hear when they bother to come back to work, it will just be talk. Seeing as local Government is now amending its end of the deal as council tax rockets whilst services are cut, maybe we should start amending our end. Opt out anyone? It is all well and good the Tories talking of decentralisation of power, but a glance at what some of the likely recipients of new powers are already doing doesn't make for pretty reading. Small Government is a good thing, but before we hand power out to local Government, it needs root and branch restructuring.

Unusually High Volumes of Bullshit

This will be my last post of 2010. I have mulled over a couple of options for today's topic. Should I end the year on a positive note, a forwards looking constructive piece for the good of all humanity? Should I perhaps try to sum up 2010 as it meanders towards its sunset with some form of literary montage post of all this last year's events? No, I don't have the former in me, nor the skill for the latter, plus I wasn't paying attention for much of 2010. Instead, I shall have a quick word or two about the lies we hear on the phone.

The last few years have seen a proliferation in 08 numbers. Almost every company of any size whatsoever has one it seems. Whilst some providers (mobile and landline) are starting to include 0845 and 0870 numbers in free minute packages there are thousands of pricey 0844 and 0871 numbers in operation. As the revenue from 0845 and 0870 dries up, many companies are migrating to the money-spinning alternatives.

The first lie here is the unspoken one - that they don't tell you they make money out of your calls. It is ironic that most complaints numbers benefit the company against whom you are complaining. They share the profits with the provider from your expensive session of frantic button pressing in a desperate attempt to just, please, speak to a human.

The second is when they say that they don't earn any money from your call. If you are calling on one of these numbers, money is being made over and above your normal tariff. If it isn't going to the company directly, they aren't doing the provider a favour out of altruistic feeling. They will receive benefit in kind from the provider, so they are getting paid whatever they say.

Then the third and worst lie is the one you have definitely all heard : "We are experiencing higher than usual call volumes so apologise for the delay". The 08 number rules are vague, so they can leave you on hold as long as they want, and boy do they want. They want you to listen to Greensleeves over and over again. They want you to tap in 17 different buttons from the cascading menus "so that you can be put through to the appropriate department" and then end up speaking to the same person anyway.

Now we all know many of the people behind these companies are a bunch of thieving scoundrels who would sell their own grandmothers for sixpence, so this should come as no surprise that they charge you to call them. I want all the businesses with these numbers to make a New Year's Resolution. If they won't revert to free numbers, I just wish they would have the decency to say from now on:

"Hello, and thank you for calling (insert name of morally bankrupt organisation), we value your call. We value it at 3p per minute. Thousands of you call to complain about our shoddy services daily, so factor in your inevitable wait time and do the maths. We have. Thanks. We really value your call. Today we are experiencing the exact same volume of calls as usual. We even fired a couple of call centre workers to bump up our profits from your wait time. Please listen to all of the following options because it might make the wait feel shorter. Rest assured, whatever your selections you will then be placed in a queue if not arbitrarily cut off and your query will be inexpertly misunderstood by our resident semi-trained baboons. We value your call. Give us your money. If you want to complain about this complaints procedure, please feel free to call back, again and again."

What are the chances? Happy New Year...

Whopping Prices

Well, I have taken a couple of days to recover from Christmas excesses and am just in time for my New Year cold. Therefore all Christmas cheer and feelings of goodwill to all men have been replaced by a feeling of general misanthropy. In my sights today are the fast food chain conceited enough to crown themselves - Burger King.

I am a much healthier eater than I was at university in my halcyon days of youth. I manage to avoid fast food in general these days, but when I used to cave into my baser desires, it would always be McDonalds rather than Burger King who would get my custom. Famished on the motorway from a day of car shopping today, we pulled into a service stop and I remembered why...

McDonalds know what they are and what they do. They provide pretty rubbish burgers, pretty rubbish surroundings and normally pretty rubbish service, but that is the essence of fast food, so they charge accordingly. It's about £4 or so for a burger, chips and drink meal. Burger King also provide pretty rubbish burgers, pretty rubbish, well you get the idea, it's all basically the same. However, a similar meal there will set the Rick Waller in you back about £7.

Now if you pop to your local pub or even a restaurant you can probably find a burger for £8 or £9. They vary massively in quality, but generally you can do ok for under a tenner. Now, my point is obvious, Burger King seem to have ideas above their station - or Little Chef (Thief) Syndrome. They serve up fast food for near restaurant prices. You may be wondering why I care. More likely you have stopped reading, but I shall continue on the off chance. I am not a share holder. To my knowledge none of my friends or family are either. I care not that a cursory glance at the ledgers of 'the big 2' show The King falling further behind Maccy D's as profits tumble. Perhaps they would do well to be less delusional in their pricing policy, but their share price matters not a jot to me. Why then does it exercise me?

Twofold, I think. Firstly, I don't like people dressing crap up as something it isn't. You might say, that's advertising. You might say one doesn't have to shop there, nobody does, so market forces should separate the wheat from the chaff. Indeed, but it does not stop their arrogance annoying me, nor has it yet hastened their bankruptcy despite the welcome downwards trajectory of their profits. The second reason is that they seem to be ubiquitous on travel routes. They appear to have almost a monopoly on motorway services and airport fast fooderies. So if ever on the hop I feel the need for something hot, unhealthy and absent of nutrition I am forced to pay a bunch of crooks a Prince's ransom for it. I may as well lick soot from my exhaust pipe and give ten quid to FIFA.