Police hunt for ‘electrocuted’ thief

... again from the Daily Telegraph

Police fear a thief may have been electrocuted or badly burnt while stealing cable from a railway yesterday.

Officers from British Transport Police found a pile of charred clothes at the scene of the theft in the Theydon Bois area of Essex early yesterday.

About 60 feet of cable was stolen and officers believe the damaged clothing — a blue coat and woolly hat — could belong to someone who was seriously burnt during the theft. They are urging the person to seek immediate medical attention.

Detective Inspector Andy Winters said: "We are clearly very concerned that someone may have been seriously injured.

"In addition, we have the possibility, as a worst-case scenario, that somebody has been electrocuted and is currently unaccounted for."

Who needs to buy comics when there are reports like these?

In a civilised country, the worst case scenario is that the perpetrator is still alive, will steal some more cable, and worse might even train (sorry, couldn't resist) others.

However, Detective Inspector Andy Winters stating that he is 'currently' unaccounted for is hilarious. This was presumably in answer to the question "Watts up?". Priceless stuff.

Special Boat Scheme

There is a great item in today's Telegraph by Jasper Copping ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9262100/Maiden-voyage-of-Bronze-Age-boat-founders.html ). I urge you to read it otherwise, all that follows will be well-nigh meaningless; perusing the article will not, however, guarantee that the converse is true.

The story shows great restraint, as well as introducing us, or at least me, to the EU's Interreg scheme. This is an opportunity to fill in some of the gaps (if you've read the article, please pardon the pun).

The fact that a 26ft boat, having been built at a cost of £1.7 million fails to stay afloat should be viewed as a resounding success, and not a failure, as implied. It is a salutary lesson that anything involving the European Union (as a political entity, not as a trading zone) is doomed to failure. If the lesson is learned at a cost of only £1.7 million, it is the best investment ever authorised by the EU.

Checking the 'leakproofness' of a vessel would seem to be a fairly basic requirement. In fairness, the Titanic got some way before hitting an iceberg; it did not suffer the ignonimity of sinking in the harbour. On the other hand, it seems unlikely that Canterbury Christ Church University will receive many commissions for building boats.

Even the name of the vessel shows scant regard for convention. The sinker is celebrating a 3,500 year-old vessel, and is named 'Boat 1550 BC'. Try as I may to find justification, the name seems inappropriate. The nearest explanations that could be offered are that either:

The Italians were invited to participate and answered: "Boat? Is so busy". Meaning, of course, that they have other fish to fry.

or

The French, already collaborating (a not altogether non-pejorative reference), thanked their European allies for the invitation, declined politely, and gave a gallic suggestion that the project at least be named 'boat'. This would have the dual benefit of not only distancing their country from the project (bateau, yes; boat, no) and would give the rest of the world a clue as to what the unintentional submarine was meant to represent.

It could, of course, also simply be that the Brussels eurocrats cannot count.

The most likely explanation of why the project failed is more likely to have evolved from an error in translation: half-sized became half-baked.

Various institutions are pooling their resources to find the founder of this project.

Conjuring with Maths

I am indebted to my friend Larry for having forwarded this little ditty.

“This comes from 2 math teachers with a combined total of 70 years experience. It has an indisputable mathematical logic.

This is a strictly mathematical viewpoint... it goes like this:

What Makes 100%?

What does it mean to give MORE than 100%?

Ever wonder about those people who say they are giving more than 100%?

 

We have all been to those meetings where someone wants you to give over 100%.

How about achieving 103%?

What makes up 100% in life?

Here's a little mathematical formula that might help you answer these questions:

If:

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

is represented as:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2324 25 26.

Then:

H-A-R-D-W-O-R-K
8+1+18+4+23+15+18+11 = 98%

and

K-N-O-W-L-E-D-G-E
11+14+15+23+12+5+4+7+5 =96%

But ,

A-T-T-I-T-U-D-E
1+20+20+9+20+21+4+5 =100%

And,

B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T
2+21+12+12+19+8+9+20 =103%

AND, look how far ass kissing will take you.

A-S-S-K-I-S-S-I-N-G
1+19+19+11+9+19+19+9+14+7 = 118%

So, one can conclude with mathematical certainty, that while Hard work and Knowledge will get you close, and Attitude will get you there, its the Bullshit and Ass Kissing that will put you over the top.


Now you know why some people are where they are!”

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This got me thinking about how easy it is to hoodwink people.

I had some great Maths teachers, and they would all have gone ballistic at seeing this story, and some may well be turning in their graves. To be fair, one of them might not because, he hadn't a clue. We didn't get on because he was ruining my favourite subject, and certainly never understood that there was more than one way of getting a 'right' answer. On second thoughts, perhaps this so-called teacher even penned the above story.

Sorry, I digress... the above story is an excellent example of taking two topics, merging them into one, and coming up with a plausible answer... most people will nod in amazement at the 'cleverness' of the conclusion, without considering, even for the briefest of moments, whether or not they have just been sold absolute bunkum.

The first premise is whether 100% is the most one can expect in life, and the second an illusion based on a total ignorance of arithmetic (sticking a 'mathematics' label on the prestidigitation merely serves to add credence to the conjuring).

So, please allow me to walk you through this field of illusion (hope you're wearing wellies because it may get messy).

A percentage is a ratio expressed as the relationship to 100, or if you prefer, parts per 100. Merely adding numbers to each other, without a base, does not give a percentage.

All this is just as nonsensical as saying that if you add the days in the month of January (31), February (28... at least in non-leap years) and March (31) to the number of letters in "skiing only" (10) then, it is 100% predetermined that you must ski in winter. Although the arithmetic, sure enough, adds to 100, it does not equate to 100%, and is of course total bunkum.

So, in the example, allegedly, put forward by the alleged maths teachers, it would be useful (alright, no use at all but, a bit of fun) to take the base as being the sum of the numbers from 1 to 26, which equates to 351, and then express the values as percentages, which would give:

 

H-A-R-D-W-O-R-K = 98/351 = 28%
K-N-O-W-L-E-D-G-E = 96/351 = 27%
A-T-T-I-T-U-D-E = 100/351 = 28%

To which we could add

 

L-U-C-K = 47/351 = 13%

 

… and if you add together Hardwork, Knowledge, Attitude, and Luck, you would get 341, which would still leave you with only just over 97%.

 

So the moral of the story is don’t believe everything you read and always come to your own conclusions.

New pairing for Strictly Come Dancing

Wouldn’t it be wonderful to have Margaret Thatcher and David ‘Dave’ Cameron as competitors on this show?

Those familiar with the format will immediately state that it requires a professional dancer, and a celebrity partner; this pairing would therefore be unsuitable.

I strongly disagree.

Lady Thatcher is, by any measure, a celebrity. There is obviously the potentially contentions issue that if “the lady’s not for turning”; a larger venue may be required to appreciate her particular speciality.

Dave, on the other hand, is a seasoned veteran of fancy footwork. One only has to observe his repeatedly, and expertly, executed ‘QUATTRO’*.  This step, which has become his hallmark, is always very clumsily executed; as this is intentional, judges will not reduce their marks.

There is a story doing the rounds that Dave always has the door opened for him. This is not in deference to his exalted position as Prime Minister but, to avoid confusion. In a rehearsal for greeting a fellow member of the ‘club’, Dave was observed entering a revolving door and not exiting for some considerable time, having twirled round and round. Upon exit, he is quoted as saying “that was one hell of a dance. Which way did I decide ‘in’ or ‘out’… and we’d better reverse that decision straightaway”.

…this brings us, not very neatly, to the subject of charitable giving. In the usual QUATTRO move, Dave has reduced charitable donations to a maximum of £50,000, or 25% of income, or has he? Who said “I used to be indecisive, now, I’m not so sure”.

The solution to the ‘charitable deduction for tax avoidance purposes’ gaffe is simple. Restrict deductible donations to entities registered as charities by the charities commission. There are 162,136 of them so, anyone genuinely interested in making a substantial donation should find something to their taste. Smaller donations could still be channelled through the efficient ‘just giving’ scheme. Overseas help would still be fundable through a UK registered charity, which provides aid abroad. Contributions to foreign registered ‘charities’ would not be tax deductible.

*For those of you who have had been sheltered from the finer points of ballroom dancing, a QUATTRO is a step so called, because it is a QUick About Turn with Twirl and Reverse Observation.

Naïve or stupid?

There must be a dividing line between naïvety and just plain, old-fashioned, stupidity.

The puppy barking at its own reflection... just the thought of it probably makes you smile. The puppy will learn pretty quickly; he's just naïve (as in untrained).

The youngster repeating something overheard between two adults... perhaps embarrassing for those concerned but, it's a lesson that gets learned. The youngster is naïve, as in inexperienced.

The politician being found with his pants down in the wrong place... not a pretty picture but, perhaps, getting caught once might be described as naïve (as in unwise), you might even take a generous view and suggest that he might have been framed; any more than that, questions could be asked about competence.

The UK government suggesting that people should take precautionary measures in case of a tanker drivers' strike... was this naïve?.

This incitement to stockpile has been interpreted, as it obviously would be, as 'keep your fuel tanks full, and have a bit extra put aside'.

The last time there was a threatened tanker drivers' strike, in 2000, petrol stations and shops rapidly ran out of jerry cans. It seems that the same thing is happening again. This begs the question of 'where are the jerries' (cans, that is). Are we sitting upon a huge stockpile of filled containers (potentially seeping into the environment), have they been put to some other use, have petrol can manufacturers got a particularly strong lobby at Westminster?

Perhaps someone would care to calculate the wasted cost (in additional fuel used, for a start) of queuing at filling stations, to only put a modest amount of fuel in a tank, the additional wear and tear on mechanical components (particularly starter motors), and the not inconsiderable additional pollution caused by this wanton exercise.

The result of the advice is self imposed rationing by some garages.

So, in your opinion, is the recommendation of the government naïve or just plain stupid?

The Prime Minister has convened 'Cobra', the emergency planning committee... lucky Benny Hill's Chinaman isn't a member!

Affordable property for first timers

Coincidentally, Britain and Switzerland have both announced (on Sunday 11th March) measures to make housing more affordable for first-time buyers. The routes taken to reach the decisions, and even more the measures are very different, even diametrically opposed.

The British government has announced the NewBuy Guarantee scheme (available only in England!). The political motivation behind this scheme purports to make access to the housing ladder more affordable for first-time buyers; a very noble ambition. How likely is it to succeed?

Working backwards from available information, one finds that the average initial housing purchase is funded with a deposit of £38,000. Based on a deposit of 20%, this equates to an average capital cost for a first-time property of £190,000. It also appears that the average age of a first-time buyer is, a surprisingly high, 37. So, basically it has taken about 25 years to save £38,000; not taking into account compound interest, or the vagaries of the stock market (where one could easily have lost 30% in 2008).

Firstly, the scheme is not limited to first-time buyers, so, at its most basic the scheme is already pitting existing home-owners against property owning virgins. This will prove to be the first ratchet in an upward pressure on prices.

The scheme is being funded by the government (whenever you read that, it means YOU, the taxpayer) and property developers. A fund is being set up protect lenders (the banks) against potential losses on these deals. Under the scheme, the property developer pays the lender 3.5% of the purchase price, and the government provides an additional guarantee of 5.5%. This clearly adds an additional cost to the expenses of property developers and will be the second upward pressure on prices. Put simply, if the sale price of a property is cost plus 20%, the average sale price of £190,000 has just become £198,330, as a simple fact of the additional cost to property developers.

So, taking our examples above, and assuming a 5% mortgage rate, the current first-time buyer has to find £7,600 to fund the interest element of his mortgage; under the new scheme, this will have risen to £9,420 per annum; an increase of £1,820 per year. If these newcomers to the home-owning experience had the extra £1,820, they could have saved it, been younger than 37, and buying property at a lower price.

Additionally, the NewBuy Guarantee scheme does not provide a safety net to the purchaser; if he finds himself in a negative equity situation (and has to sell), he will still be in the usual creek without a paddle (or even a canoe). This is all so similar to the starting point to the US sub-prime debacle, which was based on overly generous lending on overpriced properties; lesson not learned.

It will also be interesting to find out how HM Treasury will account for their part in the guarantee scheme. Will it be a straight cost, or a contingent liability, which will only become apparent when things go belly up.

The thinking behind this scheme is, no doubt, well-intentioned but also doomed to failure.

On Sunday 11th March, the Swiss people voted in a referendum (there were four others that day, as well as state elections) to limit the number of secondary (i.e. not main) residences to a maximum of 20% in any given 'commune' (town or village). The vote was passed by a slim majority, and against the recommendations of the Federal Council (government) and parliament.

The initiative was mainly aimed at mountain villages, which are sprawling as a result of seemingly excessive development. The idea is that the countryside is for everyone, and that continued development will blight this asset. Tourism being a major industry in Switzerland, this is a powerful motivator. Part of the argument was also that wealthy Swiss, as well as foreign investors, were driving up property prices, to the detriment of the younger generation.

It is now for the law makers to make this initiative applicable; they have their work cut out. There are quite a few resort villages where considerably more than 20% of the properties are owned as second residences, and frequently a high proportion of those are foreigners. Forcing people to sell is simply not a option.

So, what are the likely outcomes of this change in attitude. Firstly, it is likely that construction permits in these areas will be much harder to obtain. This, in itself, can only result in higher prices, unless there is a sustained movement to divest oneself of these properties. But, who would want to sell a property that can only increase in value.

Secondly, it seems likely that there could be another upward pressure on prices by foreigners viewing this as a 'last chance saloon' to invest in tourist areas.

In the medium term, if planning permissions are only given for main residences, this will have the desired effect of reducing prices, provided that local authorities make available the building land necessary for such projects.

This initiative seems to have some hope of helping first-time buyers but, not in the short-term, and it is not without risks.

How to keep your hands warm

I suffer from cold hands in the winter. There's no need to feel sorry for me, clap (like a seal), or throw peanuts; it's life and that's all there is to it. The problem manifests itself when skiing; the action of clutching one's poles means that there is no movement of the fingers, thereby worsening the situation.

I have, however, been looking for a solution for a number of years. My criterion was (and indeed still is) passing my ERC (Effective, Reliable, Comfortable) test.

There are many solutions that pass some of the individual criterion but none (until now) have fulfilled all the criteria.

There are inner gloves, which used to be in pure silk (good luck finding any nowadays), and are now in various artificial fabrics. Apart from making the glove tighter, which is very much the opposite of the desired effect, they do offer a slight improvement. What they are really doing is compensating for inadequate gloves. The obvious suggestion of purchasing larger gloves is ineffective, as you end up with longer (glove) fingers that hinder your grip on your poles.

Chemical warmers do indeed warm the hands but, they can also be far too hot, are uncontrollable and (mainly) non-renewable. They also tend to be uncomfortable as they are in the glove or, all but useless if fitted in a pouch in the top of the glove. The sensation of cold tends to start in the extremities of the fingers, not on the back of the hand.

There are also gloves containing elements that are heated by a battery that is contained in the glove. I have tried these and found them to be very unreliable and backed by customer service that is so appalling that it should be nominated for the opposite of a WOW! Award.

Things have now changed, at last. There are heated gloves that meet my ERC test!

My recommendation is to leave your gloves on a warm radiator overnight (and don't forget to take them in the morning). The reason for doing this is that if you start with cold hands (putting on boots, helping the kids, paying for your lift pass…), then you face an uphill battle. This way, when you put your gloves on, they will already be warm and your batteries still fully charged.

The gloves have three heat settings, with a light which changes colour from green, through amber, to red. Don't spare the horses, set them straight for the highest setting (red). On this setting the heat will be constant for about three hours. To compensate for the higher setting, I suggest that you buy a spare set of batteries; the extra comfort is well worth the additional cost.

If (when) you stop for lunch, turn off the battery (in order to conserve charge), and place the gloves on a radiator (to get that toasted feeling when you put them back on).

I am happy to have experienced cold conditions (-10), wet (snowing, that is), and had warm hands all day.

A big 'thank you' to Sandy, who will be happy to supply you with details of how to obtain this excellent product.

Do the Liberal Democrats seriously want to be elected ?

On Wednesday 8th February, the Daily Telegraph reported that the Lib Dems were seeking a pre-budget assurance that the tax relief on pension contributions would be limited to the basic rate of income tax. The Telegraph goes on to state that "the Treasury estimates that scrapping the 40 per cent relief would cost workers £7 billion per year".

Yesterday, Saturday 11th February, the Daily Telegraph further quoted Danny Alexander, the Liberal Democrat Chief Secretary to the Treasury as stating "if you look at the amount of money that we spend on pensions tax relief, which is very significant, the majority of that money goes to paying relief at the higher rate". This could turn out to be one of the most inept statements of this parliament, and, the policy which it espouses, the one that ensures there are less Liberal Democrat MPs next time around.

So why is not only the policy, but also the premise for change so unavoidably flawed?

Apart from a serious loss of contact with the electorate, referring to the Treasury 'spending' on a relief is utter nonsense. A potential reduction in income, maybe; a matter to be treated as expenditure; absolutely not.

The £7 billion refers to the difference, ceteris paribus (which you will recall means all other things being equal or constant) between the amount of tax that would have been paid if the tax relief on pension contributions were limited to 20%, rather than at the effective rate of tax. The fact is that all other things are most definitely not equal. People frequently increase their pension contributions, precisely so that their income is taxed at the lower (20% rate). Removing the higher rate relief would ineluctably lead to lower pension contributions.

At first sight, this would seem to be even more of a bonanza than the Lib Dems had been waiting for; not only would the rate of relief on contributions be reduced but the size of the pool would also diminish, leading to yet more tax intake. The £7 billion additional revenue would be even higher; what a master stroke... except that life is not quite that simple.

The whole reason behind the huge pensions industry is that it was realised, some time ago, that it was financially impossible for the government (in its role of redistributor of tax revenues) to dole (sorry, couldn't resist) out pensions to everyone as an exercise in bountifulness. The solution was to encourage each and every one to save for their pension, on an individual basis... unless they were in government or the civil service, of course. This very much helped the financial services industry, on which the UK relies so much (possibly excessively).

So the actual effect of a reduction in pension contributions, which is the unavoidable corollary to reducing the tax relief, would be a reduction in income for the financial services industry. This, in turn, would lead to reduced profits and job losses; hardly the desired effect.

And now for two lessons in very basic economics; the sort of common sense that seems to be so sorely lacking in the political class. The fact that they seem necessary reflects appallingly on the quality of our 'leaders':

Lesson No. 1 - Increased demand leads to higher prices.
The very fact that there is more money going into pension funds increases the price of the individual component shares. This benefits everyone in a fund, regardless of the rate of tax relief they are receiving. Reduce the demand and the value of the funds will fall.

Lesson No. 2 - Propensity to save is not equal.
If you have £10,000 left over after your expenses, you are much more likely to save some, or all, of it than if you have a residue of £100. It is self evident that one is more likely to have a larger amount left over if one has a larger amount to start with. Therefore, higher rate taxpayers are more likely to be larger contributors to pension funds. Now read lesson No. 1 again and see how this has a multiplier effect.

The UK, in common with many countries, has a progressive tax system, where higher incomes are taxed at a higher marginal rate. Most countries (actually, all that I am aware of) have various deductions to income which can be made, in order to arrive at a net (taxable) income. The Lib Dem proposal would effectively be at odds with this system, thereby differentiating the rate at which a deduction were allowed, based on a political whim.

If one believes in a market economy and fairness, which I thought were Liberal Democrat values then, the proposal, or demand, as it seems to be, would be a nail in the Lib Dem coffin.

The last Liberal Prime Minister was Lloyd George, who left office in 1922, having been at the head of a coalition government backed by more Conservatives than Liberals. The closest that the Liberals have come to having any real political power since then, is with Nick Clegg's appointment as Deputy Prime Minister, under the current coalition agreement. If the Lib Dems want to be electable, I would suggest that a return to traditional socialist (squeeze them until the pips squeak) ideals is suicide.

Excessive Executive Pay - a Solution

The matter of executive pay and bankers' bonuses seems to be in the news again. There seems to be a widely held view that some remuneration levels are excessive. Hand in hand with this is lip service from politicians but, no actual suggestion of a solution. Politicians are stuck between a rock (the electorate) and a hard place (their funders). The real truth is that there is a lack of will to take a (calculated) risk, and actually address the problem.

So, here is a readymade solution, complete with the contra-arguments.

Various figures have been suggested as a maximum level of pay. They are all irrelevant as  they neither differentiate between an Executive and an Entrepreneur, and they would need to be reviewed to reflect inflation. This would therefore protect senior executives from inflation; a very bad starting point.

The problem calls for a different approach. Let us assume that the job of Prime Minister must be very stressful, carries great responsibility, and as such can be likened that of a CEO of a large company.

My initial suggestion was that the maximum executive pay should be limited to a multiple of the Prime Minister's pay, say two or three times. These are, admittedly, arbitrary figures and are obviously open to attack. Here are, however, two figures which cannot be challenged:

Phi (φ) The Golden Number 1.62

This number has been used for millennia as an almost magical relationship. It is found in architecture, design, mathematics, nature, art, theology, and almost anywhere that you care to investigate. This is not the place to expand on the concept (you can click on the heading for a further insight). This is however, an excellent starting point for maximum executive pay, as a multiple of the salary of the Prime Minister.

Pi (π) The ratio of the circumference of a perfect circle to its diameter 3.14

This is again a mathematical constant that is introduced to schoolchildren, as soon as it comes to calculate lengths, areas, or volumes that involve a circle. This could therefore become the maximum executive pay, including bonuses.

Now, the last thing we would want to do is stifle initiative and innovation, so executive pay must only apply to companies in which there is no restriction on who can be a shareholder (in the UK a PLC). For the sake of avoidance, this would have to include and entity (limited company, partnership, or other) that is ultimately controlled by by a PLC.

This ensures that anyone risking their personal finances in starting a company can be rewarded, without limit. There is therefore no restriction whatsoever on entrepreneurship. It is entrepreneurs who create markets and jobs. Large companies are merely a progression from the embryo; they are not creators.

So, where's the downside? Good question. Let's look at the various scenarios if this revolutionary appliance of common-sense were put into place:

1.      Static - Executives who are in place remain where they are, and accept that they are still well paid, although no longer receiving enormous remuneration. This would lead to reduced costs for companies which would be translated into lower prices and/or higher profits for shareholders (many of whom are pension funds); everyone's a winner.

2.      Mass Exodus Overseas - All, or the vast majority, of 'overpaid' executives leave their jobs in what many would call a 'brain drain'. They would be replaced by more appropriately paid staff, with the same benefit to shareholders as the Static scenario. This would also lead to lower unemployment and, therefore, a reduced tax burden. If one also assumes that such behaviour would only be executed by people who understood a market economy, the consequence of their actions will not escape them. Putting a large number of people who are expecting vast remuneration abroad will only lead to an excess of supply over demand, thereby leading to reduced remuneration. Result, you uproot, only to find that the greener grass is but an illusion.

3.      Recycling - Those people who really believe that they are worth stratospheric salaries will become Entrepreneurs. They will risk their money to develop their own companies. Result: reduced unemployment.

4.      Retirement - Having made so much money, the executives, deprived of their shareholder (or taxpayer) funded trough decide to put their feet up. Result: increased demand, as all that spare time will lead to higher spending.

Now wouldn't it be wonderful if there were a government who brought in these emergency measures, and then went one step further. As all this pay would be dependant on the PM's salary, what about if he really led by example and said "we live in tough times, I am taking a 20% pay cut"; this would be multiplied across thousands of companies.

Being a firm believer in a market economy, I never thought I would find myself writing this but, something must change.

This is obviously fairly utopic stuff but, we are all allowed to dream

Should a banker forgo his bonus ?

Its not that I've suddenly gone soft on bankers but, the historical progression of this story, as ever, beggars belief.

In the dark days of the banking collapse of 2008 (seems like we've been in one crisis or another ever since), the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) got into serious difficulties. The bank announced eye-watering losses of £28 billion, a UK corporate record. This was put down to a case of overwhelming greed.

Rather than leave market forces to decide the price of such abject failure, the then Labour government in the UK decided to intervene. As a result, the UK Government (strictly speaking the treasury, through a vehicle called UK Financial Investments Ltd) became interested in 84% of the share capital of RBS, obviously leaving it as, by far, the largest shareholder.

In order for the bank to retain a listing on the London Stock Exchange, the voting rights attached to those shares were unilaterally diluted to 75%. There was no financial consideration for this action; very much an affront to the UK taxpayer. Very much a case of government intervention caused by panic, and reality being something for 'the rest of us'.

The then CEO, Sir Fred Goodwin, was forced to stand down, having been deemed responsible for the bank's predicament. He left with a golden parachute including a pension of £703,000 per annum. There was uproar at the amounts, and the story was on the front page for weeks. In the end a compromise agreement was reached of a pension (payable immediately to this 50 year-old) of £555,000 per annum, after having also received a, tax free, (another kick in the teeth for taxpayers) one-off lump sum of £2.7 million.

And for those of you who were wondering how plain Fred Goodwin turned into a 'Sir'; he was knighted by Labour prime minister Tony Blair in 2004 for... this is worth the wait... 'services to banking'. Laughable, tragic, inept, or maybe something altogether more nefarious.

A new chief executive was sought to replace Fred the Shred (a sobriquet earned as a result of merciless axe wielding at take-over time). The lot fell on Stephen Hester who was brought in from outside RBS; hardly a surprise as the performance of the previous incumbents, as a group, hardly warranted internal promotion.

Just, for one moment, let's assume that the government was instrumental (or at very least deeply involved) in this appointment. If it had not been at least consulted then, its cavalier attitude towards the taxpayers' money would have bordered on the criminal. So, let's take it as read then that the, then, Labour government appointed, or at very least rubber stamped the appointment of the new CEO.

I don't know about you reading this but, whenever I have been involved in hiring someone, the matter of compensation (it used to be called pay and conditions but, there's progress for you), was discussed before anyone signed any contract. We are therefore back to a government and majority shareholder not having a clue of the real world.

That's the background filled in, now fast forward to now. The Labour party (now, not surprisingly, in opposition) has 'threatened' a debate on whether or not Stephen Hester should receive his near £1 million bonus. Mr Hester has taken the path of least resistance and refused his bonus, not wishing to be branded a banking pariah.

So, I genuinely feel sorry for Mr Hester. He has, presumably, met the terms of his contract and his employers (as represented by the majority shareholder) are threatening a public execution.

The current Labour MPs (many of whom were in the previous government), should now do the decent thing and forgo all their pay and expenses.

Discounted Ski Passes

If you've been skiing or boarding to Villars before then, you are aware that queuing for a lift pass can take quite some time, especially in the peak season. There are a number of ways to avoid this waste of time, and, at the same time, to pay less  than the published price for your lift pass.

Before being able to obtain the benefit of any of these advantages, you need to have a Key Card to use as your pass. If you do not already have one then, simply buy one once you are in Villars for CHF 5.00 from the lift company, unless you already have one from a previous visit.


Option One - Easyski

The reduced prices only apply to tickets for the next day and up to four days. You cannot get a reduced priced ticket for the day of purchase.

The only type of ticket available for this option is a day pass that gives you access to the whole Alpes Vaudoises*.

You will be greeted by a screen that looks like this:

Simply choose the number of tickets for the first day, then press the 'ucBtnSelect' button (don't ask... I haven't got a clue why they don't just have 'buy' or 'select'). Repeat this process for every day; you cannot choose more than one day on the first screen (again, don't ask).

You will then have the choice of 'anonymous purchase' or 'identified purchase'. I suggest you use 'identified purchase as you still need to enter your name and date of birth for an 'anonymous purchase', and you will need to enter it all again next time you use it. You now need to enter your KeyCard number, in the format including the hyphens. Add this to basket for each different person and then repeat for each day that you want a pass. Then you will be able to pay with your credit card.

You will receive a confirmatory email which I suggest you keep on your phone, just in case there is a problem.

Option Two - Skipass

This option only gives you reduced prices, compared to a single day pass, in the sense that you can buy a pass for multiple days at a reduced price. These prices are identical to those practiced at the ticketing booths.

 

This time, the screen looks like this:

The procedure for actually ordering is similar to that for EasySki.

 

Option Three - FreePass

This option enables you to use your KeyCard whenever you want, and you are automatically debited each day. There is a saving of 30% during the week and 15% at weekends.

As with all the other options, the main advantages are reduced daily rates and no queuing. The downside is that there is a fee of CHF 50.00 (CHF 30.00 for children 9-15) for setting up the service, and you will always be billed for a full day, albeit at the reduced price. Additionally, you must provide a photograph.

If you want additional information, you can contact me through the Contact Form, and receive regular updates of snow conditions either on Twitter (@munificus), or on my dedicated skiing page.

Have a great winter!


*Alpes Vaudoises consists of Leysin, Les Mosses, La Lécherette, Les Diablerets, Glacier 3000, Villars – Gryon.

French Presidential Elections - a Prediction

French Presidential Elections - a Prediction

Before sticking my neck out and making a prediction, here is some background information that might be useful.

The French people choose a president, who must be elected by a majority of the voting population (that is, must receive more than 50% of the votes cast). This is achieved by the simple method of having, up to, two rounds of voting. In the first round, all the candidates meeting the criteria are on the ballot list. If no candidate receives an absolute majority of the votes then, the top two candidates go into the second ballot. Apart from the statistically extremely unlikely possibility of both receiving exactly the same number of votes cast, one must be elected by the majority.

The main criteria for being a candidate for the presidency are that one must be a French national aged at least eighteen years, and have been sponsored by at least 500 elected French officials. There are about 46,000 such people, approximately 35,000 of whom are mayors, the rest are elected members of various assemblies. A sponsorship is a matter of public record and nobody can sponsor more than one candidate. This sponsorship is similar to that required to join a club; it does not involve a financial element. It is also (incorrectly), frequently, described as 'godparenting', as a result of a poor translation from the French 'parrainage'.

The first round of the election will take place on 22nd April, 2012 and the second round (there has always been a second round) two weeks later, on 6th May, 2012.

The runners and riders for this contest have not yet been declared, although various intentions have been made clear. The following are near certain to meet the criteria for nomination, and have also openly stated that they wish to have their candidacy considered: the incumbent, Nicolas Sarkosy (UMP - Union pour un Mouvement Populaire, a centre right party, who polled 31% of the vote in the first round last time out), Francois Hollande (Socialist, whose party, in the form of his ex-partner polled 26%), Francois Bayrou (Democratic Movement, a centrist who personally gained 19%), and Marine Le Pen (National Front, right wing party, whose father polled over 10% in 2007, and was the run off candidate in 2002).

And here is the tip, directly from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Marine Le Pen will be a candidate in the second round of the election on 6th May. This is based, not on personal political ideology, but on simple arithmetic. In the most recent polls, one third of respondents said they would vote for the National Front (Marine Le Pen's party). This leaves two thirds of the votes to be shared between the three other candidates. It is therefore arithmetically impossible for two other protagonists to receive more votes than Marine Le Pen.

The only way this would not happen is, of course, the million to one scenario, where one candidate receives over 50% of the votes cast, which would be a first and should get you some amazing odds.

I believe Marine Le Pen has also played a very strong card in declaring that she would take France out of the Euro currency. This is unlikely to alienate her core supporters and will strike a sympathetic chord with some voters of most other parties, thereby bringing her more votes in the first round. It will further strengthen her position, as it is extremely unlikely (although I could be proved wrong), that any of the other candidates mentioned will dare to suggest a Euro exit. This will have a levelling effect on the other candidates, thereby diluting their individual share of the vote even further.

Things could have been very different if Dominique Strauss-Kahn had not been embroiled in a sexual scandal, which effectively cost him the socialist party nomination. If the rumours of a 'dirty tricks' campaign are eventually proven then, the current French administration, as well as that of the United States could live to seriously regret their, alleged, involvement.

Racism - a black and white case?

It's been quite a week for racism in the UK. Here are three examples of what have, perhaps, been the most prominent news stories.

 

Stephen Lawrence

This 18 year old teenager was brutally murdered in a racist attack while waiting for a bus. This incident happened in 1993. It has taken another 18 years for the British justice system to catch up with, at least some of, the perpetrators. There is absolutely no place for such behaviour in a civilised society. Everyone must be appalled by the actions of his attackers; their jail terms will mean that they are not a threat to society again, or at least not for a very long time. There is absolutely no room for ambiguity in this case.

 

 

Luis Suárez

The Liverpool Football Club No. 7 was found guilty by an FA (Football Association) independent regulatory commission of having called another player (Patrice Evra of Manchester United) a 'negro'. The punishment meted out was a £40,000 fine and an eight match suspension.

 

It seems that the word 'negro' was taken as a disparaging remark. It is worth mentioning that this 'conversation' was taking place between a Uruguayan and a Frenchman, and not necessarily in English.

 

George Bernard Shaw wrote that "England and America are two countries divided by a common language". He was correct when he wrote that, and is just as accurate today. The US Census of 2010 lists 'negro' as a racial option.

 

As usual, the news channels rolled out various so-called 'experts' who gave us the benefit of their vast experience in these matters. One suggested that the timing of a declaration by Luis Suárez' employers (Liverpool Football Club) to not appeal against the decision was 'unfortunate'. This pundit was obviously blissfully unaware that LFC had to accept the decision (or not) to get the clock ticking on the suspension; there was a match the same day. During this match, large numbers supporters of the opposing team were chanting 'where's your racist'; no action was taken against them.

 

My favourite quote on the matter comes from Lord Ouseley, erstwhile chairman of the Commission for Racial equality (1993 to 2000). Referring to the case and the conduct of Luis Suárez, as well as that of LFC, he stated "all we have heard are denials and denigration of Evra". Etymology cannot be Lord Ouseley's strong suit.

 

The decision by the FA has now set a precedent; one which I believe they will regret. A tariff has been set and will now need to be applied in the inevitably huge number of complaints that will be brought in the future.

 

 

Diane Abbott

This labour Member of Parliament (currently shadow minister for public health), born to Jamaican immigrants in London, tweeted "White people love playing 'divide & rule' we should not play their game #tacticasoldascolonialism". Her boss, opposition leader Ed Milliband apparently ordered her to apologise, which she duly did. Diane Abbott is not new to controversy. In 2004 the Committee on Standards and Privileges found that she had failed to declare earnings of £17,300 on the Register of Members' Interests for fees received for television appearances on the BBC. Diane Abbott was required to apologise to the house. In 1996 Diane Abbott stated that "blonde, blue-eyed Finnish girls" were unsuitable as nurses. The reason: they had "never met a black person before". She also made a speech in the United States where she stated that "the British invented racism". Last year Diane Abbott was reported as having referred to the Prime Minister and his deputy as "two posh white boys". The worst which has befallen Diane Abbott is that she has been required to apologise. Could this be referred to as a whitewash? (Sorry, I could not resist that one).

 

As a result of the controversial Tweet, experts were again brought in to comment. One who was very much defending Diane Abbott from any racist slur that was suggested (after all, what are friends for) stated that she had always been re-elected with increased majorities, at every general election. Apart from the fact that the assertion is incorrect, it could also be shown to prove exactly the opposite point to that sought.

The UK seems to be going through turmoil over racism at the moment. These are a number of high profile news stories that are making the country re-evaluate its attitude towards racial tolerance. It seems to be a case of a multicultural, multiethnic society no longer having a clue of what it really stands for.

 

In order for things to really change will require a British (or English) ethnicity, consisting of a common heritage, including a common language and a common language; this will take more than one generation.

Democracy - Swiss-Style (2)

Tomorrow (14^th December, 2011), the Swiss government will be elected.

 

The government (Federal Council) consists of 7 members.

 

They are elected by the members of the two chambers of parliament; the National Council (lower house) and the Council of States (upper house), which are jointly referred to as the Federal Assembly.

 

Elections are held every four years in December, shortly after the elections to the Federal Assembly.

 

Any Swiss citizen with the right to vote is eligible to stand for election to the Federal Council, and does not necessarily have to be an official candidate to be elected. The Federal Councillors are elected in separate ballots.

 

The Federal Councillors standing for re-election are voted for in order of their length of time in office.

 

The election takes place as follows:

 

• The Federal Assembly votes by secret ballot in a number of rounds.
• Any eligible person can receive votes in the first two rounds.
• From the third round onwards, no new candidates are allowed to stand. If no candidate receives an absolute majority, the person who receives the lowest number of votes is eliminated before the next round.
• The procedure is repeated until one person wins the absolute majority of votes, and is therefore declared the winner.
• Federal councillors are elected for a four-year term of office.

 

All this makes for a very stable government, as the members are in office for 4 years, unless they choose to resign. As opposed to the British system where the cabinet is regularly ‘reshuffled’, so that ministers have no security of tenure; their office is at the whim of the Prime Minister.

 

If you are interested on how this all works in practice, watch in French, German, or Italian from 06:30 GMT tomorrow.

 

If you are interested in further reading, take a look at the Swiss Confederation website in English, French, German, Italian, or Romash ; the four national languages, as well as one especially for you!

Cameron's veto - or is it?

If you are totally convinced that the UK should be ‘in Europe’ (whatever that may mean), or that federalism is a dirty word, stop reading now.

That’s the bigots out of the way, now we can have a sensible discussion.

I had this crazy idea many, many years ago… we’ll come back to that later.

It’s been another strange week. A week that has seen David Cameron come back from an EU meeting proud to have used his power of veto, and the sight of independent examiners giving more than strong hints on exam questions. Totally unrelated I hear you say; maybe not.

The veto at the EU meeting in Brussels on Friday (9^th December, 2011) has already had many column inches (yards) devoted to it, and no doubt many more will follow, as well as numerous hours of television reporting and pontificating.

The European Union consists of 27 members, 17 of whom are also members of the single currency, the Euro. The meeting was very much about saving the Euro (to which Britain does not belong). Unfortunately, the ten European countries that joined the Euro chose to ignore the (fairly loose) fiscal policies that had been put in place. The result was inevitable but, at least the need for harmony is recognised. It seems that the UK is confusing the Euro and the EU; they are not the same.

Enough has been written (especially by me) about the Euro, and that a single currency needs to be operated within a single fiscal unit. This ‘unit’ does not have to be a country (although it is preferable), but does need to have the same fiscal rules. History has taught us (… it’s pantomime season so … ‘Oh no it hasn’t’) that whenever a state has linked its currency to an ‘independent’ value, it ends it tears. South American countries linked themselves to the US Dollar, the US Dollar was linked to Gold, and The UK joined the ERM (Exchange Rate Mechanism)… every time it has ended in financial calamity, with substantial fallout for the country concerned, followed by a period of sustained growth.

Back in the day, French President Charles de Gaulle did not want the UK to join the EU (or the Common Market, as it then was). He was also against the United States, and the mighty Dollar, wanting, instead, to go back to the gold standard (where paper currency was underwritten by physical gold reserves). General de Gaulle did not think that he could trust Anglo-Saxons to be sensible. This, coming from the man who had personally been protected by the British during WWII and saw his country liberated from the occupying German forces by none other than the Allies (of which the UK and USA were very much a part). De Gaulle must have been very convinced of his opinions… having famously stated ‘I am France, France is me’, one could not underestimate his ego. History tells us he was right.

David Cameron says that he used the veto to protect the city of London. In fact he has, inadvertently, done exactly the opposite. In fairness, he was very much between a rock and a hard place but, when it came to it, solidarity flew out of the window, together with any expectation of solidarity from the UK.

Much of the world crisis of 2008 was blamed on the collapse in Sub-Prime instruments. These were effectively bundles of mortgages with better than average rates of return (they would be, as they were not being advanced to top notch credit risks; the clue is in the name) that were repackaged as safe investments. The theory being that, as there were so many individual mortgages, if a couple went sour, it would not unduly adversely affect the rate of return. This is very much like saying that the Titanic was a very safe place after it hit an iceberg; few people die on cruise ships so, after the first dozen, your statistical chances of survival are higher. Absolute bunkum but, said quickly, you might fall for it. These were a typical Anglo-Saxon tool; one that is merely illusory. Great while the illusion lasts but, when the children find out that Santa Claus does not exist (apologies if any bubbles are being burst here); they all shed a tear or two.

One joins a club to be amongst people of similar interests, beliefs, aspirations. The UK has always wanted to be different… whether it’s driving on the left (unlike the rest of Europe), hanging on to imperial measures (remember the outcry when Brussels ‘dictated’ that supermarkets had to price food in metric units). The UK has always been a reluctant member of the EU, and the EU has always only just tolerated UK membership, with its endless demands for exceptions. The apocryphal Times headline “Fog in Channel – Continent cut off” shows the attitude of a proud and insouciant nation, just as King Cnut did when he commanded the tide to halt and not wet his royal feet.

The UK has become a service economy, with wealth being created by financial institutions and their ever more sophisticated (read as unintelligible to mere mortals) instruments. To simplify, the Germans build motor cars, the French farm; the interests are almost totally opposed to those of the UK.

So, the Cameron veto will merely serve to put further distance between the 26 other members of the EU and the UK. The European majority will welcome this with open arms; it is the excuse they have been waiting for to say that the UK are unwelcome intruders, cannot be trusted when times get tough, and have no further active role to play in the EU.

So what now for the UK?

Here are three impossible alternatives:

Remove the veto, join the Euro, and play a full part in modelling the new Europe. This involves altering the national psyche so has absolutely no chance of success.

Battle with Europe every day and become more and more miserable, especially knowing that the UK has lost yet more friends amongst the 26 ‘other’ nations.

Leave the EU and ‘go it alone’, hoping that an economy built on smoke and mirrors can survive without friends.

So we are left with the ‘crazy idea’ I had so many years ago. Watching Sky News the other day reminded me of why it had originally struck me as being so obvious. The presenter had a couple of people reviewing the morning papers and the story of examiners effectively divulging questions was discussed. The American lady present said that she saw it as ‘teaching to the question’. She is of course entitled to her view. People in Europe see it as cheating, Two irreconcilable opinions.

This then leaves us with the only viable option… ask the UK’s de facto friend and ally, the United States, to become the 51^st State. They speak the same language (well, almost), have very similar ideas, fight the same wars side by side, and are both not in the Euro. If you think that distance is a barrier to this idea, remember that Hawaii is also in the United States.

Mr Cameron could do me one favour (please); appoint the current Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, as European exit minister. I can’t wait to write the headline ‘Danny da Veto’.

UK Strikes 30th November, 2011

Back In the days... before Margaret Thatcher broke the stranglehold the unions had on the UK, the wildcat strikes, let alone the 'official' strikes gave the country a 'reputation'. The British disease, as it was called throughout Europe, reflected this seemingly suicidal attempt at destroying an economy which was already fragile. It also destroyed the majority of the goodwill that had been gained by the UK's involvement in the Second World War. There was a genuine admiration for the sacrifices made by so many, including all those who made the ultimate sacrifice. There was even a tendency to 'buy British', obviously after favouring their own nation. This lasted until the era of strikes, when Europeans became disaffected with lateness in deliveries and shoddy workmanship; this new Britain did not impress people the other side of the Channel. The collapse of the UK manufacturing industry followed. A country famed for its plethora of car manufacturers rapidly became bereft of any British-owned and UK assembled vehicles.

The UK reinvented itself as a service economy, with financial services being a substantial element. The risks inherent in relying on a service economy are for another day.

Civil servants are going on strike tomorrow in order to make everyone aware that they are not happy. This displeasure is because their extremely generous pensions will require more funding. They will, in general terms, be required to save more of their income into their pension; a concept which is somewhat familiar to the rest of the population.

In this age of transparency, I have attempted to research exactly who voted for this proposed strike. To my astonishment, the information is not exactly easy to extract. I am indebted (in a non-financial sense, that is) to the Socialist Worker for the results of individual ballots. The intention was to establish the percentage of civil servants who had actually voted to strike... shouldn't prove too difficult. In order to establish the figure, all we need is the size of the 'electorate' and the number of people who voted (either for or against).

The members balloted by individual unions include the mentions "estimated, around, nearly and over"... unbelievable. There are also a number of unions where the turnout is not disclosed, so it is impossible to know what proportion of members actually voted for a strike.

Undaunted by the lack of information provided by the unions representing civil servants... perhaps even more surprising, given that they are people one would associate with administration, I made a few assumptions. This basically revolves around the qualified votes, which have been assumed to be accurate. From a statistical point of view, the benefit is very much being given to the "yes" vote (won't bore you with the details here).

If you're sitting comfortably, here is the result: 26.12% of the people balloted voted for a strike tomorrow, or if you prefer very nearly three quarters of those entitled to vote did not vote to go on strike.

So the gun is being held to the head of the UK by 26.12% of civil servants. These people are paid by the tax payer (in whatever guise it might be). They only exist to service the nation, which we have already established is based on services; somewhat flimsy foundations. These people are worried about their pensions; a relatively long-term concept. They would be better advised to concentrate on the job in hand and hope that a pension will be worthwhile having.

The gun is indeed being held to the head but, it is suicide. Who wants to pay more taxes to fund the pensions of people who hold one to ransom? Do you?

The only thing history teaches us is that we don't learn from our mistakes.

Creating Consistent Images/Icons

When you want to use a logo somewhere (iSignature, documents, websites, button...), there is no problem if it is a ‘one off’. You simply find the logo you are looking for and adapt it to your needs. The problem really comes when you want multiple logos but you also want them to have a similar ‘look and feel’. They will be different sizes, different file types… and a lot of work for you to make it look good. The workaround is to use a process where you add them all at the same time.

 

This started as an idea for creating ‘uniform’ buttons for Filemaker databases but, its application is actually much wider.

 

Start by making a list of all the logos/icons you want. Create a folder on your PC named ‘Icons’ (or of course, anything else you fancy, as long as you can find it).

 

Now open a browser window (hopefully you already have Firefox, as this is so easy to use)*, and go click here, then, once you are on the site, click on “click here to load button”. Restart Firefox and you will have an in your tool bar. Now open each of the websites where you want to use their logo (from the list you created). You will notice that each tab also has a little icon for the site (known as a Favicon).

 

The following steps need to be repeated for each site:

 

Select the tab

Click on the  and select ‘save icon’

Rename the file something you can remember (the default is ‘favicon’ and save it to the ‘Icons’ folder you created earlier

 

Once you have done this your ‘Icons’ folder will be filled with all the favicons of the sites where you want to use the image, with an appropriate name.

 

The next stage is to get these favicons into a format that you want to use. The format depends on exactly how you are using them, as does the size. As examples, a jpg file for the twitter would look like this, and a jpg file for the Facebook logo would look like this  . You can convert the favicons to JPEG, BMP, TIFF, GIF, PNG file types.

 

The next, and final, part to the exercise is to translate the favicons into a consistent image format that you can use throughout any given project. I suggest that you choose one logo to work on to get the look and feel as you require, and then repeat the identical operation for all the others. Doing this sausage machine factory style, one after the other, will not take long at all. The way to do this does not even involve downloading any software, and it does not cost you anything either.

 

Go to www.coolutils.com and carry out the following steps for each logo/image, after you have established the size and file type (use JPEG if you are in any doubt) that you need for your particular application:

 

Click on ‘Browse’ and locate, on your computer the favicon you wish to convert.

Set the conversion options (file type and size)

Click on ‘Download Converted File’; the file name will automatically be the same as you had set for the favicon (hence the importance of using an appropriate name).

 

Once this is done, you have all the images you need.

 

Obviously, the use of the system is not to violate copyright but, to enhance the display of your site/iSignature/database/document.

 

*If you do not already use Firefox, you can download it for free here.