Reduce Gas and electricity bills

It always amazes me how much people bleat and fail to do anything about their condition. At a time when the vast majority of householders are under financial pressure, mostly through no fault of their own, they are not prepared to make small adjustment to improve their lot.

Gas and electricity prices seem to increase with a relentlessness that makes Gadaffi's regime defending tactics almost equivalent to white flag waving.

The reasons for the increases are usually well-crafted, if difficult to actually believe. The reduction in value of the Pound against the Dollar, or against the Euro (this argument has also been used in the opposing direction); the increased cost of being 'green'; the substantial investments in 'infrastructure' (this one has been used for decades so presumably they haven't a clue of what to do); the astronomical salaries paid to some senior 'executives' (alright, that one has not been put forward yet).

Anyway, the only way for the individual customer to do something about his charges in the short term is to switch to the lowest cost supplier. There is absolutely no difference in the gas or electricity consumed, just the price changes. The way to reduce costs in the medium term is to switch to the lowest tariff supplier at every available opportunity, thereby putting pressure on all the suppliers to reduce costs if they want to retain customers.

All this to say that if you want to help yourself (and you have a UK address) then, take a look at this: Reduce my utility bills NOW.

The answer to 15th September question...

Oswald Gruebel, is now the ex-chief executive of UBS. Took longer than I thought

What's $300 Million between friends?

Remember the $2 Billion lost by a 'rogue trader' at UBS. Well on the same day that the boss of the bank, Oswald Gruebel, said he would not resign over the 'incident', the bank also increased the estimated loss to $2.3 Billion.

So you think it's only 15%...which of course it is... and if the bank is so incompetent in the first place then, useless plus 15% does not really make much difference. However, the extra $300 Million is nearly the same amount as the current United Nations appeal to help six million (we're talking people now, not dollars) Pakistanis who have been affected by devastating flooding in their country. This is for aid over the next six months, not the next night out.

Lesson learned - you bet not!

After the last financial crisis (apparently in the dim and distant past of 2008-09), there were a few obvious lessons for banks. These included banks not lending on a highly speculative basis and then ‘bundling’ a series of these highly uncollaterised loans into instruments that were sold on as good solid investments. It also included banks themselves having internal controls to check what was going on.

 

There was also widespread condemnation for the exorbitant bonuses being paid, especially in the investment divisions of banks.

 

UBS, a so-called ‘Swiss’ bank (although the ‘S’ stands for Swiss, the largest shareholder is actually the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation) announced last month that they wanted to reduce the payroll by 3,500 staff, in order to save $2.53 Billion annually. Seemed like a good idea.

 

Today we learn that UBS has been stung for $2 Million by a ‘rogue trader’.

 

Incredible that UBS even knows how much they have lost; if they’re that smart, they could have avoided the problem in the first place.

 

What odds on board-level resignations?

Reading a newspaper can seriously damage your health.

Today's Daily Telegraph is replete with stories (some of them extremely obvious) of gloom, confusion, and worse, any solution being nigh on impossible.

We are greeted by a story that 'compulsive materialism' is destroying family life. This was backed up by an earlier report by UNICEF, in 2007, ranking Britain and twenty other 'developed' (whatever that might mean) countries. Brace yourself for the results... child welfare 21st (or if you prefer, last), self-esteem 21st, teenage pregnancies 20th, educational standards 18th.

The latest UNICEF report suggests that an obsession with buying goods (a bit of an unfortunate use of the word) for our children, rather than spending time with them, is one of the underlying causes of the riots that gripped London and other major English cities recently. The logic applied beggars belief. If the rioters came from families where they were already being spoiled with an abundance of designer labels then, why plunder more? If, on the other hand, the looters came from financially disadvantaged families, where expensive goods were not the norm, then why steal them, as they would rather spend time with their parents than have tangible trophies?

This same UNICEF report suggests that the government should ban advertising aimed at children under the age of 12 and encourage parents to work shorter hours. Seems an excellent idea, but this is in diametrical opposition to the government's intention of getting those same people to work more years to cover the costs of pensions.

On the same day that we have the UNICEF report, the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) also puts the boot in. When it comes to teenagers becoming NEETs (Not in Education, Employment or Training) Britain is right up there with the worst of them, ranking 9th out of 32... unfortunately, the higher the place means the higher the likelihood of being a NEET.

The Daily Telegraph continues the Armageddon-like 'news' with another OECD report pointing out that Britain is the third most expensive place in the world to go to university, being beaten into the bronze medal position by the United States and Korea (presumably South but, you can't be too sure of anything these days). But, fear not, that Gold medal position will not escape for long as the data refers to 2008-2009 and Britain is allowing a tripling of university fees; other countries haven't got a hope in this contest.

If you are not depressed yet, here's today's clincher from the Daily Telegraph: there is 'a pandemic of drug-resistant tuberculosis spreading across Europe at an alarming rate, medical experts have warned'. This is under the headline 'London is the Tuberculosis capital of Europe'.

All these stories bring back vivid memories of two characters. One is John Laurie who played Private Frazer, the dour Scotsman and local undertaker, in the television comedy 'Dad's Army'; uttering his catchphrase of 'we're doomed, we're doomed'. The other is of a jubilant Tony Blair at his 1997 election victory party and the blaring (sorry, couldn't resist that one) music of 'Things can only get better'. Both made me laugh, albeit for different reasons. One was an extremely amusing work of fiction; wish they both had been.

Frankly, I think we've all lost the plot.

Throwing a tantrum... let the punishment fit the crime.

Three similar offences in different countries with very different punishments but maybe lessons to be learned.

 

The first, in December, 2008, Muntadar al-Zaidi, an Iraqi television journalist, hurled his shoe, closely followed by the second of the pair at US President George Bush. Both missiles missed their target but al-Zaidi was floored by security guards and arrested. This event took place during a news conference in Iraq, in conditions where one would have hoped there was a high level of security, which was clearly lacking.

 

The second took place in London in July, 2011, when Rupert Murdoch, CEO of News Corporation was giving evidence to a parliamentary enquiry into alleged phone hacking. Jonathan May-Bowles (aka Jonnie Marbles) pushed a paper plate covered with foam into the face of Mr Murdoch, the empty plate subsequently being thrown back at May-Bowles by Mr Murdoch's wife. The punishment for the first incident was six weeks in jail (with only half to be served), as well as £15 victim surcharge and £250 costs; the second incident of the paper plate being thrown back resulted in no charges being brought.

 

The third similar event took place a few days ago at the University Dufour in Geneva, Oskar Freysinger; a prominent Swiss right-wing politician had a plateful of cream thrown at his face. This event took place at a book signing following a debate on the place of Islam in Switzerland, in front of a packed auditorium. The young offender was escorted to the door by a security guard and told to go home. End of story.

 

Whilst in no way wishing to condone gratuitous violence or lack of respect, these three episodes teach us a lot about how we encourage incivility by promoting the instigators.

 

The shoe hurling incident was against a backdrop of a country in violent conflict, where loss of life through hostility was a daily occurrence; the incident received worldwide coverage, the perpetrator became a popular hero. The plateful of foam incident also received plenty of media coverage, especially in the United Kingdom. This was against a backdrop of so-called indignation at a phone hacking scandal that has already closed the News of the World, which was the English language newspaper with the largest circulation in the world. It also shows the double standards in the UK, as no legal action was taken as a result of the plate being thrown back at the architect of the first missile. It has also given ample publicity to a budding comedian who was unknown before the event. However, the Swiss cream pie which successfully reached its target has received very little coverage and the name of the launcher is unknown.

 

So, does the punishment fit the crime? Absolutely not, the sentences imposed are inversely proportional to the actual events. The lessons one might learn are that the punishment seems to reflect the level of embarrassment of those meant to protect (perhaps it is they who should be punished for failing their duties), and that cutting off the oxygen of publicity reduces, at very least, the on-going publicity given to an event.

 

Perhaps, even more importantly, given the relative peacefulness of the three countries where these events took place, the expectation of punishment is not a deterrent.

 

Article first published as Throwing a Tantrum: Let the Punishment Fit the Crime on Technorati.

Technorati Verification

This is the token that needs to be placed 2MC3YHXQYYU8 in order for the site to be approved

Should Algeria send the Gaddafis back to Libya?

It is being reported that 'Colonel' Muammar Gaddafi's "wife and three children have fled to Algeria" and are being welcomed there. This is clearly an attempt at softening public opinion towards them, as the same news could also be reported as "four members of the Gaddafi clan escape to Algeria".

The children are hardly of an age where they have the benefit of innocence. One is a Lieutenant General in the Libyan army; another heads the Libyan Olympic committee, as well as being chairman of the General Post and Telecom Company and the third is so notorious that he has been the cause of many 'incidents'.

The world is now seeing what was always suspected (but not to this ridiculous extent) were the excesses of the Gaddafi clan. The pictures of palaces where the interior design makes the term 'bling' seem very reserved, the appreciation of what the despot Gaddafi actually did for his people; nothing unless they were part of the clan, or were effectively bribed, when deemed necessary.

It should be remembered that the term 'despot', when applied to the self-styled 'Colonel' is totally apt. Gaddafi lead a military coup in 1969 whose first act was to abolish the constitution. He then attempted to convince the world that Libya was run by local councils while diverting revenue into his personal coffers and styling himself variously as "Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution of Libya" and "King of Kings".

Internally, Gaddafi maintained power by repression (hardly surprising for someone who usurped power in the first place) with execution, murder and arbitrary arrests being commonplace.

Externally, Gaddafi often got his own way by using the massive revenues generated by the Libyan oil fields to feed the greedy. The sums involved were so substantial, entire governments could effectively be bought off.

If you for one moment believe that this is not the case then, consider just one of the antics of his son Hannibal (now apparently in Algeria) and its consequences.  In July 2008 Hannibal Gaddafi and his wife were accused of assaulting members of their staff at a hotel in Geneva. The Gaddafis were questioned by the police and released on bail of SFr 500,000. 'Colonel' Gaddafi retaliated for this affront by withdrawing billions from Swiss banks (don't ask where the money came from... you already know), throwing out Swiss diplomats, stopping oil deliveries to Switzerland, and arresting Swiss citizens in Libya.

The Swiss government attempted to remain calm and especially not capitulate to such boorish behaviour. Switzerland, in a measured retaliatory move prohibited a total of 188 Gaddafi family members and their cohorts coming to Switzerland. This is where things got a little messy as Switzerland had signed the Schengen Agreement meaning that measures taken to prohibit the Gaddafis access to Swiss soil automatically extended to the rest of the Schengen countries (effectively Western Europe). For once Europe showed a united front; they thought that the Swiss action was unreasonable and pressure was put upon Switzerland to withdraw their hardly draconian measures and apologise for having arrested a Gaddafi. This was of course a golden opportunity for Europe to show that it could not be bought off; it again failed miserably. Before you ask, the staff who had allegedly (there is of course the presumption of innocence) been assaulted withdrew their claims after having received a settlement.

The Gaddafis have enjoyed their ill-gotten gains and now the funds and all other assets that they have 'borrowed' from Libya should all be returned to the rightful government.

My personal view of whether Algeria should return the Gaddafis? For humanitarian reasons, accept them in the clothes they are wearing and refuse any donations. What are the chances?

If you would like to cast your ‘vote’, feel free to visit http://www.facebook.com/pages/munificuscom/117957851592742?v=wall

Disenfranchised? I'll vote for that!

Are you fed up with hearing about 'the disenfranchised'? Quite apart from the appalling grammar, as you well know, to disenfranchise means to deprive of the right to vote.

In UK General Elections some people do not have the right to vote; these include, amongst others, anyone under the age of 18 years, members of the House of Lords, people serving a prison sentence (although this is currently under review), and anyone found guilty of breaking election law in the previous five years.

Disenfranchisement is most definitely not synonymous with: disadvantage, deprivation, ostracized, opting out... although, it is of course possible to belong to more than one 'group'. It may even be that there is preponderance (but no more) of people who are disenfranchised who are also disadvantaged but, it would be difficult to justify this in the case, for example, of a member of the House of Lords, let alone the monarch.

What is more likely to be the reason for people willingly not voting (a form of voluntary disenfranchisement) is that they too are fed up with a political class that has totally lost touch with reality. Contrast these two absolutely genuine cases:

• A 24 year old mother of two found guilty of accepting a pair of shorts looted by her housemate during the rioting in Manchester is sentenced to five months in jail (admittedly later reduced on appeal); the harshness of the sentence no doubt at least partly as a result of the 'zero tolerance' espoused by the Prime Minister.

 

• An MP (or to be more precise, an ex-MP) submits false invoices totalling £8,385 over a period of well over a year (in other words not an isolated incident by any stretch of the imagination), is branded a liar by his trial judge... is free after serving four months in jail.

 Both are offences, both should be punished but the relative seriousness of their crimes, in particular the pecuniary value and, even more so, the premeditation (or lack of it in one case) make it ludicrous that the punishments should be so similar.

Who can be bother to vote when those elected seem more intent on looking after themselves than improving the lot of the average citizen... well here's a radical idea: pay MPs in proportion to the turnout in their constituency.

The UK Government has set up a website/ system for receiving suggestions. This would appear to be an intelligent and welcome addition to the tools available but seems to be suffering from slight apathy.

The UK Government is intent on cutting expenditure, in order to reduce its huge debt. This is very laudable and obviously essential. The size of the problem is indeed massive. The UK has a population of 62.2 Million and a debt of £4,000 Billion. The arithmetic really is simple; this equates to £64,500 for each adult or child in the UK. To put it into more 'real' figures, a married couple with two children are effectively 'responsible' for a debt of £258,000... doesn't make your mortgage seem so bad. But, on the other hand, if things go badly wrong, you haven't got an asset to sell to pay your creditors; the family silver went a long time ago.

The coalition was committed to allowing UK voters to cast their choice on potentially changing the voting system from 'first past the post' to a system of 'alternative vote'. Both these systems fail to take into account the apathy of the general public for politics. The current parliament was elected by a mere 65% of the voting population. Put another way, people who did not vote actually showed their intention by nearly as many votes as were cast for the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats combined.

So where is all this leading?

We can deal with the three points above (participative government, reduce government expenditure, enfranchise non-voters).

There is now an e-petition to link MP's pay to the turnout in their constituency. The basic pay for an MP is £65,738 so if he is elected with a turnout of 65% he would only receive £42,730

If you live in the UK, and/or are a UK Citizen, you can electronically sign the petition at http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/8046

How short is long-term?

UK Prime Minister David Cameron posted on the conservative blog on 29^th July, 2011, an article entitled “We’re doing the right thing for the long term”.

Four nights of rioting later he seems to be advocating removing benefits from people involved in the rioting, as well as their council (or council subsidised) homes. However populist this idea may be, it can hardly be seen as anything but an ill thought out kneejerk reaction.

If the action of one person (adult or minor) within a household can result in the whole family no longer having a roof over their head the consequences might not be as anticipated:

• In order for a council to evict a tenant in England, the council needs to obtain a court order, having first given 28 days notice of its intention to apply for such an order, under the 1985 Housing Act. This may well have little immediate effect.
  
  
• Once the case reaches court, the decision would have to be made to evict the person/family. If the tenancy agreement has been honoured by the tenant then the only grounds for eviction would be if a ‘serious criminal offence’ has been committed. Neither burglary, nor looting, nor handling stolen goods are considered as being a ‘serious criminal offence’, unless there are multiple offences of burglary. So the chances of anyone being evicted appear somewhat slim.
  
  
• In the seemingly unlikely event that a court upholds the eviction order, a whole new can of worms is opened. This is of course not a reason for the court to shirk its responsibility but, having one’s eyes open is probably not a bad idea either. So if the person/family is now homeless, they will undoubtedly apply to their local authority to be rehoused with one of three outcomes:
  
  
• The local authority rehomes. This would be ludicrous as all the effort and procedural messing about would have resulted in absolutely nothing.
  
  
• The local authority refuse to rehome and the tenant and his family decide to live rough. This would not enhance anybody’s chances of getting a job (having no fixed abode), could only lead to more disaffection of  those involved, more disenfranchisement (more on this on another occasion) and probably not the image of London (amongst others) that the UK would like to show the world, especially when the Olympic spotlight shines next year.
  
  
• The local authority refuses to rehome and the tenant and family live with friends/relatives. It would seem somewhat foolhardy to expect that the friends/relatives of the now evicted family have ample accommodation to house them. So these people will be sharing accommodation with others in conditions that will probably contravene the Housing Act (S. 325) which stipulates that a dwelling cannot be overcrowded. This would then potentially lead to the local authority applying for an eviction order (which would be against the ‘innocent’ tenant)… and the whole cycle starts again.

There isn’t an easy answer to the problem but hot air is definitely not a solution.

The carrot and stick approach is very laudable but only works if both carrot and stick are properly utilised. Threatening to beat someone with a soggy carrot or to give them plenty of sticks to eat will not work.