To Claim or Not to Claim? IPSA - I Probably Shouldn't Actually

I am rejuvenated after just watching the ever-stirring Sound of Music. You can't beat a bit of do-re-mi, some evil Nazis and nuns with automotive know-how on a Saturday morning. Christopher Plummer and his Von Trapp Family Singers have inspired me to get blogging, though on an utterly unrelated subject.

With the continuation of the Government's policy drives taking up most of the headlines not otherwise engaged in discussing world political instability or carefully not quite repeating the names of various rich people who may or may not have done naughty things, the reform of MPs' expenses system has rather faded into the background. Certainly there was a bit of newsprint used up on the various jailings of formerly (Parliamentarily) privileged politicians, but the new system and MPs' attempts to change it have very much slipped under the radar.

Elliot Morley became the latest to be imprisoned for quite blatant theft or fraud, whichever definition rings your bell. However, with these cases even still going on, and surely therefore even in the most optimistic MP's mind, the trust of the people still very much absent from the lower chamber, our representatives are already trying to chip away at the new rules; these new rules which they all happily proclaimed were long overdue, and every one of them really really wanted to install and just hadn't got around to it (whilst grabbing money in a manner more befitting an "underwear model" trying to sell her footballer-related sexploits to the tabloids).

I find the concept of MPs demanding their regulatory body change its rules ludicrous. How can IPSA be independent if MPs who are meant to be regulated by it can set their own rules - quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Now whether or not IPSA listen, I find it staggering that MPs already have the effrontery, nay temerity, to make such demands when they should still be in sackcloth. It is as if they feel those who still have their seats and their freedom have weathered the storm and can resume business as usual. What happened to the remorse that was poured out to anyone who would listen when expenses scandal dominated the news?

The letter sent to IPSA in February by Tory MP Adam Afriyie certainly brought up the correct point of cost of IPSA (which I'll move onto in a second), but the tone is laughable. It essentially boiled down to a threat that if IPSA did not rewrite the rules, relaxing in particular the notorious second home allowance and other apparently stringent regulations, some 300 MP signatories would move to amend the law from which IPSA derives its authority. Who do they think they are?

The other point that is genuinely incredible is the cost of the set-up of an 'office' to run an expenses system for fewer than 700 employees. Even discounting the £1 million plus spent on investigating MPs' expenses (how on earth did they manage that?), IPSA cost well north of £6 million just to start. Now, call me a cynic but I think there may have been some pretty creative accountancy there, and some unrequired costs.

First off, for set-up costs I imagine the offices of the House of Commons fees office, now-defunct, would probably work. We could probably use their desks too. And their chairs. And staplers. And filing cabinets. And pens. Hell, we could probably use some of the same staff, after all, the only thing you need to do is write a proper set of rules and apply them. Unless we think the previous body were corrupt and not just bound by laughable rules, there are few problems there. Companies do it day in day out, for a fraction of the cost. They manage somehow to work out that the office telephone bill and an ink cartridge for the office printer are claimable from company monies and a new ride-on mower for the CEO's back garden is probably not.

I tell you what, I'll run IPSA, and for a damn sight less than £700 per diem that Prof Sir Ian Kennedy gets to chair the whole shabang. So, all in all, a bit of a mess really. Can't say I'm at all impressed by IPSA or the behaviour of a vast number of MPs over all of this. Costs must be brought under control - these people have become far too comfortable with the kind of numbers involved here. Maybe if IPSA could run its house properly, MPs might have to spend some of their own money, and that in turn might help them realise its value. Perhaps that is the silver lining from the whole thing. A night on the airbed in the office, having to (shock, horror) buy your own food and pay your own mortgage might expose our MPs to a little bit of real life. Maybe in return they will think a little harder before spending our money, either on themselves or their policies.

Huhne's Been a Naughty Boy Then? And Other Assorted Stories...

Right then, still no time to post properly so I'll do a quick run through of a couple of items in the news at the moment...

I can't help but be very amused at Chris Huhne's situation. Not because I think he's getting what he deserves because he may or may not have broken the law, but because he has been desperately irritating of late and on an unrelated point, has Lego hair. His grandstanding over the AV referendum and attempt to paint himself as the Liberal attack dog have irked me. I'm not sure what a liberal attack dog looks like, presumably something along the lines of a really quite miffed chihuahua.

One can understand his not wanting to get banned from driving, and the fact that one could find oneself in such a position after 4 relatively minor offences in 3 years (35 mph or that marginal 'is it amber or will it turn red exactly as I cross the line?' aren't desperately criminal) is risible. Still, rules are rules, and nor hell a fury like a woman scorn'd.

The next barking bit in the media has been the 'sack Ken Clarke bandwagon', as driven by the press and jumped onto by Ed Miniband (as sure a sign as there is that you are on the wrong vehicle going the wrong way). I can only assume there was no real news over the last day or two - no brutal suppression of popular uprisings around the world to report on. Now his words weren't ideally chosen but any fool could see he wasn't saying some rape isn't "serious". He was simply pointing out that there are different levels of the crime as defined in UK law, for which there are indeed already varying scales.

Whilst accepting that all forms are of course wrong, stating that a brutal and violent rape with a weapon should be regarded as more serious than that of a non violent rape, or further statutory rape seems only logical. It is not condoning one type or diminishing its impact or importance, but applying the rule of proportionality to different crimes as is done every day by our courts. That we can all get so het up over an unfortunate choice of words that did not represent best what everyone knew to be the essence of what was being said, rather than actually debate real topics is rather disappointing. Not surprising though.

I can't say I'm wild about enshrining into law a mandatory percentage of the budget to give in aid. Whilst accepting that as Dave says, we have a duty to the poorer nations even when struggling ourselves, there should be the ability to keep more money in the leaner times like any household would do. It isn't punishing poor countries to reduce aid in straightened times - it's charity, sometimes you can't afford to be as generous but it is all still giving.

There seems to be a rush not just to sign up to every good cause on the planet (think global carbon emissions) but also to volunteer to fine ourselves or lay ourselves open to prosecution for falling short. I get that proponents will say 'if it isn't law, there's nothing to stop them going back on their promises'. It is just that they are wrong. They are called elections. The other point on our aid programme, as I have made before (here), is we aren't too great at picking out who to give money to and how it gets spent (China, India).

So, more to come when I have a moment. MPs and their expenses are on the way and I think I shall have to drop some injunction-based gags into my human rights piece before it sees the light of day, but we're nearly there. For now though, that's all folks.

And start using my voting buttons below. It makes me think you care. It's like having friends. I imagine.

A Liberal Dose of Taxation?

Well I certainly have to start with an apology. Been a long time since I posted and indeed a while longer since I posted with any regularity. No doubt both my dutiful readers, in an effort to find similar levels of mental stimulation, have returned to watching paint dry or with the advent of summer are perhaps out in the garden watching grass grow. Why? New job, long hours and I suppose also the fact that the news cycle has been repeating itself very much over the last month. Thus, whilst things are still gripping me, they seem to be pretty much the same things I have already written about.

So what to post about? I am nearly there with my human rights follow up as it has reared its ugly head in the press recently, but that may have to wait until next week, time permitting. I suppose I could write about super-injunctions, but then, I think that's the point, so I can't. I could reiterate the point that most commentators are happily ignoring that, crap though they are, the Coalition plans for student fees are progressive and by virtue of everything being paid back only when one is in work and when one can afford to, only taxes the rich graduate, not the poor applicant. One such fool was Baroness Kennedy of Mansfield College, Oxford on Any Questions this evening, who was either shockingly ignorant of the policies or deliberately misrepresented them. I could write smugly about winning the AV vote (not personally, you understand, but as Terry Leahy says, "every little helps"). However, I'm quite happy with the fact that the crap idea of AV has just gone away now, so think that best left alone. I am not, however, leaving it alone because I feel the need to buoy up the Conservatives' Coalition partners after a pretty shoddy few weeks.

Yes, now I think of it, I think that as got me riled enough to fall upon as my target for today. Why, oh why, is it accepted wisdom that the Tories should start bending over backwards for the Lib Dems, "shoring up" the embattled Nick Clegg and generally making them feel a bit better about themselves after they had their first taste of what taking decisions as opposed to taking the moral high ground, and hang the practicalities is like? My that was a long sentence. I like those. You may have noticed. Short ones can be fun too, though. Occasionally.

The leverage in the partnership is very firmly in the Tories' court, to horribly mangle metaphors. They did rather well in local elections for a governing party making cuts in a harsh economic climate; surely far better than they thought they would. Not only have they not lost much ground to Labour, but they have gained crucial support back from the Lib Dems. This was vital as one of the largest reasons the Tories failed to win a majority was the number of seats taken from them by Lib Dem votes, not Labour ones. They have also very easily won the AV vote. It has been a pretty good couple of weeks for them, in fact.

As some shrewd political commentator or other mentioned recently, a large number of Lib Dem voters vote for them exactly because they are unelectable; a protest vote. That vote no longer makes sense when they are in power, so they lose a great deal of support. Also they were always going to cop an enormous amount of flak from the largest demographic who support them; the dreamers who love the idea of Lib Dem policies but aren't too fussy over doing the maths. They simply cannot understand why or how the Lib Dems could be doing so many un-Lib Dem things. The reason, of course, is that the Lib Dems in Government realised that you might have to compromise your abstract principles when faced with the reality of Government.

So why the rush to help the Lib Dems? They are fixed for 5 years in this Parliament, and bound to the Coalition agreement. They would neither dare renege on the Coalition deal nor depose Nick Clegg. Who is waiting in the wings? Chris Huhne? Now that's a political joke. Certainly not Vince Cable. Danny Alexander would be a fool to run and David Laws is currently incommunicado. In short, the Tories are in the driving seat, and the Lib Dems have lost their leverage. They are still bound to deliver their Commons votes on Coalition Agreement, but cannot threaten to take their votes in the plebiscite away - that support has evaporated.

So please let us see no Lib Dem freebies. Most importantly of those, I hope the Chancellor ignores the idiotic rebranding of Vince Cable's ludicrous "mansion tax". The increasingly worrying Cable is blowing the trumpet of fairness again. Yes, it is his view the rich should "pay their fair share". As I have said before, nobody is willing to actually put a number on "fair", because they know they are already taking a disgusting amount from them in comparison to almost any world economic power. They always forget to mention how much they already pay in tax, what they do for the economy, and how little most take from public spending. Yes, fairness, the banner under which you can apparently justify theft.

The mansion tax policy is abhorrent. It is a tax on an asset - what people choose to spend their hard-earned post-tax money on. The Government has no right to this money (like it has no right to levy inheritance tax). It is totally unfair that someone who chooses to buy an expensive house with their taxed money be taxed on it more than they already are. There is already the dubious stamp duty, and council tax that somehow links size of house to how much you should pay for identical services, used or otherwise from local Government. Someone of the same earnings could buy many smaller homes, overseas homes, gamble it all away, snort it all, or burn it all. The state should, according to Vince, differentiate between the two of these identically rich people because one put their money in a property.

It isn't about "they can afford it" and not just because many people with large homes are cash poor and couldn't, but about the concept which is morally wrong. What is even more ridiculous is that Cable thinks that he is in a position of power whereby he can demand a swap - the dropping of the 50p rate (which has caused UK tax revenues to drop as businesses fled to more tax-friendly countries) for an introduction of his disgusting policy. The 50p rate needs to go, and if the Business Secretary can't see that it is an enormous barrier in front of the sign the Coalition wishes to hang stating "Britain, open for business", perhaps it is time for him to go too. Perhaps it has been so long since the Tories were on top they don't know how to deal with winning. There's being magnanimous in victory and there's handing back the prize to the losers. One can only hope Dave, George et al know where the line is.

MPs expenses next methinks…

A Miserable Little Compromise

An important day in our national history approaches, and lots of people are getting very excited. No, I am not talking about the "how on earth is it considered appropriate 24 hour rolling news that someone is getting married and some barking old woman has camped out to watch it and dressed her dog up in a tiara and veil show?" Or the Royal Wedding as I believe it is more normally referred to.

No, whilst I'm very happy for the bride- and groom-to-be and think both the engagement and the actual wedding day of such a prominent royal are indeed newsworthy, I am hopefully not alone in tiring of hearing about the niff naff and trivia associated with it day in, day out. I hope it doesn't ruin it for you if I let the cat out of the bag. She's going to wear a white(ish) wedding dress and look pretty. I wonder if I can still get odds on that.

No, I am in fact talking about an event a week later - the national referendum on the voting system. To get it out of the way early, I'll let you know I shall be voting 'no' to AV. And here's why…

Our voting system is not all about being 100% representative of how the nation feels. It is not. The  voting system that people might think would be 100% representative of how the nation feels is proportional representation (PR). Except it isn't. It only divides up their votes and allocates exactly that percentage of 'seats' to the 'parties' they voted for. It isn't representative of how they feel, it's a compromise, where people vote for the representative they think best represents their feelings, but they will not mirror everyone's every wish. And PR is rubbish. You get Nazis in Parliament and the nation would go down the plug hole as true PR for voting-in MPs should also mean PR Government. How adept at dealing with Labour's economic cock-up would a Tory, Labour, Lib Dem, BNP, DUP, Green, you get the idea, Coalition Government be? Simple, we'd be Portugal. Nearly as sunny at the moment though, I guess.

As I have written before, democracy is the compromise we have for two reasons. Firstly, because Parliament isn't big enough to fit in 61 million people, and more importantly, because we wouldn't get anything done with 61 million votes on everything - quot homines tot sententiae (so many men, as many opinions). That's what democracy is - the best compromise between having a say in all the decisions that affect you, and there being a chance of some decisions actually being taken. You pick the candidate or party you like the best and hopefully they pushes for all those things they said they'd do which you agreed with.

So what is our electoral system there for? It is there to fairly balance the feelings of the people, their 'will' if you will, and the need for effective Government. It is there to interpret the votes of the people and produce an effective Government that best represents them whilst standing a chance of strong Government, and we should make no apologies for that.

Therefore we need to look at what system fulfils that compromise, that balance, best. First past the post (FPTP), our current system, is not perfect, but it is far better than the alternative on offer - or indeed any other alternative I would argue. It asks the people what they want and based on which party got the most votes says "right then, a higher number of you voted for this lot than voted for anyone else, so this lot win and can have a crack at governing". It is fair and representative without allowing vicious minority groups a platform, or without condemning every Government to the infighting and inaction that plagues Governments in constant coalition.

There are three main problems with the alternative vote (AV). Firstly, it is a very negative system. It is as much about making sure someone doesn't get your vote as deciding who does. That is no way to decide who should run the country - it breeds totally the wrong idea as to what your vote means to you. That is, it is not about what you feel, what you believe in, but a negative sense of what you don't like. Whilst some might say this already exists under FPTP with tactical voting, it is vastly increased under AV. Every vote under AV bar the ones for the top 2 candidates (or occasionally more) is tactical.

Secondly, AV politics would be far more about not alienating your 2nd, 3rd and 4th choice voters than about attracting 1st choice voters. This means you will not see political parties coming out with what they actually want to say, but pandering far more towards other parties' voters. It means in the great political spectrum analogy which I like to call my ice cream seller theory, the parties become less representative of what they represent but move towards their opposition to steal their voters or at least make themselves appear a valid 2nd choice.

The theory goes thus: ice cream sellers of equal merit position themselves along a stretch of beach. Customers go to the nearest vendor. The ice cream sellers at the extreme ends realise this and move inwards. As they move in, providing they are still the furthest left and right, they are guaranteed all that custom between them and the beach edge, but can start to take customers away from their next nearest rival, those who started nearer the middle (this was what Blair did with Labour, taking the centre ground whilst keeping all the left as there was no option left of them, and undoubtedly what Cameron realised as he moved the Tories more central, though UKIP, BNP etc can cause genuine harm in some hard-fought areas, but it is beside the point).

The problem with this moving is that it encourages the wrong type of politics; not a principled one based on what your beliefs are, but one which is rather quiet about what your beliefs are, hoping your core vote stays with you, whilst you pander to other people's voters. UK residents may recognise this as the politics of the last 14 years with Labour and then the Conservatives supposedly gravitating towards the middle to win the vital middle ground that decides elections. It is a dishonest politics if you ask me, and not something we should further encourage with our electoral system. It also means you do not get strong Government as everyone is afraid of upsetting someone they might need as a 4th choice vote - and you need strong Government.

My final big problem with AV is the weighting of the votes. They say that everyone's votes count equally in AV, some people simply vote many times for the same person, some jump from bed to bed like Premiership footballers and BBC political correspondents. Whilst I'm not truly comfortable with this explanation, I can accept it because there is a deeper set flaw.

Proponents of AV say it is better than FPTP because it is is more representative. Not only have we looked at why that isn't exactly the point but we can also look at why it isn't even exactly right. Imagine there are 10 candidates (A-J) and they get the following breakdowns of the 100 strong voter turnout: A-48, B-10, C-10, D-10, E-10, F-5, G-5, H-3, I-1, J-1. Next round A gets up to 49, but still not over the magical 50%. As they run through the many rounds within AV, the candidates fall out from J backwards until we are left with A-49, B-26, C-25. When C is eliminated, A wins 51-49.

AV says that is a fair representation, 51% want A, 49% want B. Yet 48% actually voted for A 1st time and only 10% for B. How is that even close to being representative of the will of the people. Imagine if C's votes were redistributed so B won 51-49. Apparently now a candidate who is only 1st choice of 10% of voters should beat the one who had 48% approval as 1st choice. FPTP is simple here - you get more people to say you should win, and you win.

The miscarriage here is that whilst all men are equal and get one vote, that is on the premise of voting once. You cannot think it fair that a vote for someone as 9th preference (as B could have been for over half its votes in the case where it wins) should carry as much weight as a vote for someone as 1st preference. It doesn't ring true to me. In terms of how representative it is, surely when the first round had A and B at 48% and 10%, calling a win under FPTP there is far more 'representative' of who they want to win than the last round 51% for A and 49% for B? AV not only flatters B, but with a slightly different distribution of C's votes, could even have B winning when clearly lacking genuine popular support. And all because of hanging their hat on 50% - you can't be elected until at least 50% of the people who bothered to turn up to vote hate you less than the other people still in the contest. Pro-AV campaigners claim you need to have "the support" of 50 % of voters. I don't call rating someone 9th out of 10 "support", I call rating someone 1st "support", but maybe that's just me.

So there you go - a pretty long and perhaps at times hard to follow argument I don't doubt. What I'd like you to take away though is that not only is AV not more representative and genuinely calls into question the weighting of all votes as equal, but that being representative is not the only function of our electoral system. It is there to interpret how we vote and deliver accordingly as strong and decisive a Government as it can in line with our wishes. Not only is FPTP simple, but its simplicity gives it its validity and transparency. AV on the other hand is unrepresentative, shady and negative. In fact I think it flatters to deceive that it could even be "a miserable little compromise".

M.O.T. - More Over Taxation?

Right then, today we're going to regurgitate a news story from last week, and in fact for those with a memory for the news, from 2008. Transport Secretary Philip Hammond has ordered a review of the current MOT system. For the few without contact with this system, it is there to ensure that cars are legally roadworthy, passing a number of specific tests on various common components in cars; brakes, lights etc. Mr Hammond has ordered a review with a view to trying to alleviate the considerable and growing financial pressures on the British motorist by making said tests less frequent by law.

His justification is that "car technology has come a long way since the 1960s" and they wish to revisit the rules and regulations drawn up from that era to see if they still have "the right balance for MOT testing of modern vehicles." In principle this doesn't seem to be that wacky. Now there are various proposals being investigated, but all with a view to making the compulsory tests less frequent thereby saving the motorist a bit of cash.

The have been catcalls from many directions, which is to be expected; you can't please them all. What might look like a nice way of directly saving the motorist money will apparently also be the ruin of many garages who rely upon conducting MOTs to put food on the table. Ah, the Lord giveth and he taketh away. Also anyone interested in seeing this proposal fall flat on its face (mechanic types, anyone who has 'safety' in their job title, and the Opposition) is screaming blue murder at this reckless suggestion which is apparently tantamount to lining up row upon row of small, cute children and mowing them down with a car in a sort of Grand Theft Auto frenzy.

Now I don't know if changing the rules is a good idea or not, but I do think that a review is worthwhile. What might be useful is some proper research showing road incidents and accidents which were directly or indirectly caused by the un-roadworthiness of vehicles, not just ones involving unroadworthy cars. Then we need to see projections of which parts are likely to become unroadworthy when, and how they might contribute towards accidents. Models have to be run for various lengths of MOT validity and varying ages of cars. There's quite a bit of work there. In all, it is the kind of research one hopes was done when coming up with the first timings for MOTs in the 1960s. When one has done the research you need to work out the pros and the cons, and weigh up which option is the best.

Now that all might sound rather like common sense to you, but I fear this will not happen. This is because of scaremongering idiots misusing statistics, a particular bugbear of mine. Listening to the naysayers on this topic on the radio last week there was much talk of the poor mechanics, but an even greater emphasis on the 30 odd people who will apparently be added to the road death toll if one of (they naturally failed to mention which) the MOT validity extension options were to come into being. Now I don't know where this figure came from, and indeed it may be accurate (though I doubt it), but I take umbrage with the way in which it is used.

It appeared that people seem to think if they point out that one more person dies this way, it is an evil and wrong policy. They misunderstand that almost all Government is about as Mr Hammond says, finding "the right balance". It's up to our elected representatives to work out where that balance sits. Sometimes the cons are financial costs, sometimes human costs, but they all need to be put into the equation, and sometimes, as bad as cons may seem, the pros will outweigh them. Far fewer people would have died if we had let Hitler crack on with his living-room fetish, but on balance, the sacrifice was worth it. Rather extreme example, but the point works for all decisions, no matter how trivial.

If you want to eradicate deaths from road traffic accidents we could enforce a national 5mph speed limit, or maybe just ban all automobiles. The economy might take a bit of a dive though. Balance. We could make MOTs a weekly requirement, or go for the ultra-safe daily option. That would also probably give a great boost to the car repair industry. That said, most of us would all be broke in days. Maybe we'd all stop driving. What then of the economy? Also, with the golden goose of the motorist cut open would the mechanics now find no eggs left as we resort to bicycles and horses? Balance.

That is what annoyed me. I don't like to see idiots on the rampage with crappy headlines and soundbytes. They stop debates that should happen from happening. It may be that 5 or 500 more people die if a policy is enacted, or 5 or 500 garages go under, but if our elected representatives decided it was worth it, then that's what they're there for. If you don't like their reasoning, vote for the other guys next time (and make sure you put the current lot last, because AV is far more about making sure who doesn't get your vote than who does - next post I think).

In case you think I'm taking sides here, I am not. Not only do I not know which way MOT validity should go, but I also do not feel sorry for the Government coming in for stick for proposing nothing more than a sensible review. Being angry at the idiots doling out the abuse does not require me to feel sorry for those receiving it. Why not? Because they should have seen it coming. They did exactly the same to Gordon Brown's Government. The Tories questioned the validity of an almost identical proposal put forward by Labour in December 2008. They questioned, in particular, why the proposal was announced to fanfare of 'saving cash for hard-up motorists' before a feasibility study had been completed. Which is exactly what they've just done themselves.

So all in all, what I'd like you to take away from today's rantings is nothing to do with failing brakes, cracked windscreens or bald tyres. We may be over-testing, we may be under-testing; we may (more by luck than judgement in all likelihood) have it just right. My point is that we should allow sensible debate with genuinely researched arguments behind them. We should not let debate be quashed by some arse grandstanding over some isolated statistic or other. All Government is balance, maybe to an extent all life - this is what logical reasoning depends upon. As Paul Boese said, "we come into this world head first and go out feet first; in between, it is all a matter of balance."

Manners Maketh the Man

I was asked a little while ago by one of my friends (if this wasn't you, it was the other one) if I might be able to write an entirely positive post. Would I be able to quit my bitching for one day? Could I find something to be happy about or thankful for rather than just ranting and raving at the ills of my world? I said I would try, and I have, it has just always been the post I was going to write when something really got my goat.

Today, I have stayed at home. I woke up and all was well. I gave the house a thorough spring-clean and sat down to some admin. I intentionally spoke to nobody and ignored the news lest something get on my nerves. I wondered whether or not to have the Monte Carlo Masters on in the background in case something on it offended my delicate sensibilities. My love of tennis won in the end and the risk has proven well taken; Murray is even playing well. You see, when I went to bed last night, I had been reminded of something nice to write about and I wanted nothing to spoil that before I could get to the computer. And here it is.

A month or so ago I bought an inflatable roll matt for camping from Millets. As with anything under £100 I inadvisedly discarded the receipt. Night one went fine. Night two not so well. I woke up on a flat mattress with a slightly hurty back, to use the correct medical term. It appeared the screw top valve had failed. I briefly looked for the receipt when I returned home. On not finding it I simply thought I would chalk that one up to experience and throw another £50 at the problem next time I needed one.

I realised that I would require a matt for a camping-based stag weekend recently. On seeing my sad looking crumpled mattress in the corner I thought I would have a shot, no matter how unlikely, at exchanging it or securing a refund without a receipt. I called Millets who simply asked for the date I purchased it. I gave them a 2-3 day window and they said they'd get back to me once they had gone through their receipts. That they did and we found mine in no time. All I needed to do was pitch up with my bank statement to show the same total amount.

Along I trotted to the store where they were happy to either give me a full refund (not store credit) or a replacement. Whilst he processed the refund I picked up a camping first aid bag off the shelf. I had been looking for one for a while, but swamped with the myriad of choices, had yet to make up my mind. I was happy though, and filled with warm feelings towards these kind strangers, so I just bought it. You see, good customer service not only is something we should aspire to as pleasant behaviour between us and our fellow man but it more than often costs nothing, and many times will bring many benefits in tow.

The staff at Millets didn't have to act like that, and I am pleased to say they are not alone. My future brother-in-law recently got home from The Scottish Restaurant and found his bag one McSomething-or-Other light. The lady he spoke to simply took him at his word over the phone and gave him a code for a free meal next time he popped in. It heartens me to see this sort of behaviour, and especially in large companies. As much as I transfer between banks or mobile 'phone companies it seems they almost all prescribe to the "if we're all equally bastard-like you'll still give us your business because it's too much hassle to change to another bunch of equal bastards and you know it" way of doing business.

So that little piece of negativity aside, let me just say I like it when people are nice when they don't have to be. Whether it is out of Christian fellowship, a good upbringing, or a feeling that it will do them better in the long run financially, I don't care. As they say, good manners, like good grammar, are free, and that is all good customer service is really. Take a man at his word and you will be rewarded more times than you are stung, and you'll be all the better for it. Another strand of the Big Society? Maybe not, but a society where everyone behaved like my Millets men I'll wager would be less broken.

P.S. Normal griping service to be resumed shortly. If you haven't the time or inclination to comment on these posts, please use the voting buttons below so I can gauge your general opinion on individual posts (and duly ignore them).

Quote Unquota

Well seeing as we are on the subject of universities, I shall let you all know something else that grips me. In case anyone was thinking I blindly sign up to whatever policy comes out of Tory HQ I hope my criticism of their handling of university fees goes some was to dispelling your worries of bias. Today, a step further, with indeed an individual element. You see I cannot square myself as a little 'c' or big 'C' conservative with the total and utter tripe spouting forth from Clegeron, or Cameregg, whichever elision you prefer for the Dave and Nick show.

This week Cameron and then Clegg have lambasted Oxford University for their poor (or indeed "disgraceful") record on admitting black students. Now we can certainly spend some time on the foolish misuse of statistics Dave embarked upon by including only statistics for 'black-Caribbean' students in his statement about black students gaining places. Surely he must have seen from Opposition how damaging misuse of a statistic can be, especially when it is so easy to prove a deception. It was one of Labour's favourite modus operandi - trot out some statistic that in isolation might justify the crap one is about to talk about or even the legislature that one is about to attempt to pass.

So, first smack on the wrist to naughty Dave. Not least it was foolish because if you are going to take his upside down view of who is responsible for low percentages of one group or other (compared to society's cross-section) attending top universities, only 41 children of any black parentage gaining an Oxford place would still be a headline low figure. But that is all immaterial, because the way he is going about this is desperately foolish in its leftwards leanings.

Quite how you can think the number of students good enough to attend a certain university is down to said university is beyond me; for that is the problem. If you have been to pretty much any university in the past 15 years (and it is probably more true of Oxford than of most others), you will see the enormous amount of time, effort and money that goes into encouraging poorer students to apply. That though, is pretty much where the university's responsibility ends.

Certainly it has to conduct a thorough assessment on who is the most gifted and would benefit the most from a university education (and who would benefit the country the most by said education). To do this it will of course take into account many things, and those factors won't be exclusively to do with money. There are poor children on bursaries at private schools, there are rich children whose parents do not pay for their education. We do not all fall into the rich/poor circles of the Venn diagram and those circles only - unique snowflake and all that.

This is where we trust our institutions to use their not inconsiderable intelligence to differentiate between grades and potential, though that is not to say they don't very often go hand in hand (On a side note too often the liberal media and politicians seem to think if you go to a good school, you are given good grades on a plate. Yes there is an opportunity, but just that. It takes brains and a lot of hard work to realise that potential). I truly believe this selection process is happening. What is more, given the choice of letting non-political academics make these decisions or two-a-penny politicians after cheap points in sound-bytes, I'd go with Professor Plum every day of the week and twice on Sundays. After doing all this, the university can and need do no more.

The problem is clearly that the state is failing to produce the raw material. Not enough quality is getting to the doors of the Russell Group. To blame them for not admitting people not good enough is farcical. Oxford and Cambridge work. They are still world class institutions. This suggests they might be doing something right. Likewise, most private schools seem to have a pretty firm grip on things - if they don't, people vote with their feet and take their money elsewhere. Most at state school do not have this luxury. To blame the university they fail to get into for their lack of schooling is ludicrous though, and does them a great disservice in shifting the focus from where it should be - namely raising the standards of state schooling to somewhere nearer that of private schooling, level or beyond.

The even more worrying leftist tosh, Clegg dribbled out yesterday. He essentially threatened Oxford and by extension all other universities of withdrawal of funding if they didn't ensure more students from poorer backgrounds were admitted. Here are his actual words: "if you want to continue to get support from the taxpayer to educate our young people, you've got to make sure that British society is better reflected in the people you take into the university in the first place." Some pretty important language to pick up on there, and some statistical nonsense.

First let's deal with the easy bit - yet again totally rubbish statistics; the "better reflected" part. Last year 22% of Oxford's student population were from ethnic minority backgrounds. This compares to about 10% nationally. Certainly there are individual ethnicities who do better than others and those who do poorly. However, there are many mitigating factors, not least the majority arts bent at Oxford and the oversubscription of many of the courses most popular among ethnic minorities. For an excellent review of this topic from January, read this article from the Cherwell, a student paper in Oxford (here). So, at double the national average, not desperately racist, and more than a better reflection one might think; unless we're going to ask Nick Griffin to point out how a lower percentage of white people gain places at Oxford than there is in the national cross-section. So let's steer clear of that one, eh?

Second up, the language Clegg used was the language of quotas. This misguided attempt at two wrongs making a right has long been championed by the left. Make up for deficiencies in some system or other, glossing over the cracks by simply adjusting the end product. Problem with not enough women in Parliament? Do what Harperson wants and have quotas based on the general population. Don't worry about trying to deal with institutionalised sexism, just alter the picture at the end. Don't worry about using a proportion based on full time workers who take no time off for pregnancy (which goes a long way to explaining some of the gender gap in top flight business, politics etc), go straight for 50:50. Because that is the thing about quota politics. Not only is it totally morally bankrupt as a policy, but each quota is invariably based on something utterly incomparable. It works on the exclusionist, discriminatory principle it is supposedly meant to be ousting.

I don't like agreeing with Simon Heffer, he's a little too far right for my liking, but his article (here) yesterday was spot on regarding this quota setting. Clegg is totally wrong when he says universities have "got to make sure" society mirrors their intake. All they have to ensure is a fair admissions policy and the pursuit of academic excellence. It is up to Clegg and Co to deal with the standard of student applying to university, Oxford or otherwise. They need to forget this quota nonsense and realise that it is for the Government to try to give the opportunities to the poorer children to exploit their potential. Once everyone has done that, let the chips fall where they may.

This has been dangerous and foolish talk from a Coalition I had high hopes for concerning education. I thought they understood the way to deal with high achievers in the private sector doing better than poorer counterparts was not to criticise them, legislate against them or try to drag them down (or as Labour called it "education, education, education). It is to give them a bloody good run for their money by raising the standards of the state sector.

Hopefully Michael Gove can step in and rescue this horribly backwards thinking that seems to have come out of nowhere with some real direction in primary and secondary education. That is the key to it all - education, and not higher education, because unfortunately for most, by then it is too late. Cameron needs to grip this alarming leftist lurch of his, or else he may find his abused Conservative partners bring about an end to this Coalition rather than the minority Lib Dem partners he seems to be more than willing to accommodate on almost every issue. For everyone's sake let us hope this is merely part of the courting procedure that he doesn't intend to carry through to the marriage. Like buying flowers.