Out of Order

One week further on and the latest revelations from Parliament keep coming. Takes our minds off  swine influenza I suppose although it also helps me forget there's another round of elections next month.  Of course I must vote but it will be for the least bad rather than the best candidate/party on offer I suspect. 

The picture is the late Phil Silvers in the role for which he is best remembered: Bilko. Bilko ran scams that make some of our MP's look like amateurs although they invariably backfired on him by the end of the show. The morality and standards of the age dictated that crime should not pay and so in the Phil Silvers show it did not.

Few MP's can now believe that the creative and innovative approaches they took to their expenses were worth it. Whilst the disclosures in the Telegraph were necessary  they have proved damaging.  Like the banking system once the hue and cry has settled some positive changes to the system of MP's remuneration will be necessary. It should be an opportunity to take a harder look at what we ask of our MP's and so come up with something that will encourage those with a wish to enter Parliament appropriate and proper incentives to do so. A quick shopping list suggests:

- A decent salary. £65000 is not enough. An article in last weeks Times said that might be about £25k light. That seems a lot closer to a fair wage given the responsibilities we place on our MP's;

- A substantial reduction in the number of MP's to finance the  salary increase above. I'd suggest say 200 off the current cohort of 650 or so. A good saving on the public purse (maybe £50m) which could more than fund increased MP's salaries and pay  for our hospital chaplains, thus keeping the National Secular Society happy.  All round this seems to be a much better use of  public money;

- e-enablement of Parliament. Is it necessary that we drag MP's out of their constituencies to be lured into the temptations of the Westminster village? Do they actually have to be in and around the house as much as they are? For some debates surely it is not beyond the wit of someone to provide a facility for on-line voting. For some meetings video conferencing would surely be a good substitute for being there in person. I am not saying IT is the answer to everything (for example, Ministers would still need to be in London)  but it should be available to allow some MP's to spend more time in their constituencies - and with their families. It would also save some money.   e-enablement would also have benefits on Parliamentary demographics - people who felt unable to commit to living away from home would be able to do so much easier.

I think that's a few starters for ten. 

  

Cheers!!

Am I alone in thinking that these days the freedoms we take for granted are under threat. Not as a result of some later day Orwellian totalitarian police state but rather as a result of  a succession of rather mean spirited and more trivial restrictions.  Nanny state stuff. Smoking bans, responsible drinking campaigns, CCTV cameras and so on. All of it possibly with some merit but sometimes perhaps enforced disproportionately. 

But in a development reminiscent of Passport to Pimlico (from which the still above is taken) comes this really heartening snub to the massed ranks of petty officialdom. Its  concerns the story of a pub in Barnsley that claims to have found a loophole in the smoking ban.  By designating a separate room as a "Smoking Research Centre", they then invite customers desirous of a cigarette with their pint to first complete a survey which  asks them about their smoking habits post the ban. Having done so they can then have then have their nicotine and alcohol fix. Custom at the pub - which was struggling and up for sale - has soared. 

I think this is a brilliant and enterprising initiative, the British at their best. Suffice to say the forces of petty officialdom in the form of the Local Authority are winding up for a swift and decisive counter-offensive to put paid to this impertinence.  Shame! Killjoys!!

Margaret Rutherford, Stanley Holloway: where are you when we need you?

  

Its the paperwork.....

Being self employed has some things to commend it. In particular I am pleased to have dispensed with the pretence that the organisation I work for is wonderful, has a mission and strategy that I believe in wholeheartedly  and that their values are my values. In the end its a job of work. If I do it well then the client is happy: if not, they can show me the door.  Somehow that seems a better way of working, free of the office politics and all the other baggage that comes with being a corporate animal.

But it has its drawbacks: the paperwork, the tax returns and the taxes themselves. Once the government have got the income tax, the national insurance, the employer's NI and VAT out of me they have done far better out of it than I have. However I feel very fortunate to be working at a difficult time for the economy. So I happily render unto Gordon that which is Gordon's. 

Had I known that quite a lot of the rendering was going to be more unto  MP's themselves than  I might do  so a bit more grudgingly.  Its not the money itself that is the problem rather the conduct of MP's from whom we might expect better standards of conduct. Surely the noble calling to public office should not be devalued by the kind of naked self interest so evidently displayed by MP's on their expense claims. What example does that set to the rest of us?

There is a pressure group called "None of the Above" who believe that we should be allowed to tell politicians just what we think of them by positively voting for none of them. If we had an election tomorrow I am sure that the "None..." party would have a landslide on its hands.  

Who's fault is it anyway?

 An excellent piece in Thursday's Times by Daniel Finkelstein sums up better my thoughts on our current public finances than I could ever say myself.  Its here out of interest.  What is particularly striking is that the latest drive on reducing public spending  suggests that vast sums can be saved simply by making central government more efficient. That is doubtful. Of course there is scope to do better and get more bangs out of the taxpayers  buck but there is a myth that public sector land  is some sort of haven for the idle, with huge salaries, two hour lunch breaks for all and only the occasional inconvenient interruption when mandarins have  to  spoil an otherwise agreeable afternoon supping tea and eating cucumber sandwiches to deal with affairs of state.  In truth the public sector is a place where people work hard and  where the myth of "jobs for life" is just that: a myth. The low hanging fruit of easy efficiency gains have long since been picked and what is left will be modest in scale and something of an uphill struggle for those left to deliver it. 

For my vast army of readers I'll offer two suggestions for getting public finance back under control. Under this government there has been a proliferation of independent or quasi-independent organisations set up to deliver some aspect of government policy. I believe many - each with their own boards, accountabilities, and internal mini-bureaucracies are a luxury we cannot afford. A very quick and wide-ranging cull is needed. That doesn't necessarily mean putting a stop to the function but just merging it into the work of another organisation. Secondly I believe that what makes good politics (short term, expedient, media friendly)  can be the enemy of sound stewardship of public money.  All too often hapless officials are expected to justify decisions which in all honesty were not really theirs but those of their political masters.   This is not about clobbering Ministers.  By contrast I think there is a wider issue about managing our own expectations of what governments of whatever political persuasion can really do and whether the only response to some media outcry is to throw money (our money) at it. It all goes back to the Daniel Finkelstein article: we are the ones who have created the mess but when are we going to accept some responsibility for the mess we're in? 

To sung mass at 10:00am - I failed hopelessly to organise myself for the normal 8:00am. As it was I was able to listen to a very uplifting homily about Jesus the shepherd and us as his sheep. I am resolved to be a better, God-centred  and more joyful sheep as a consequence. 

Joyful and sheep was the theme for the middle part of the day as I took advantage of a free ticket to join 22,000 other sheep to watch Charlton's last game in the Championship - for a while at least. There had been talk before the game of a demonstration after the match to show the club Board what we thought of them. Frankly the performances on the pitch over the season as a whole merited nothing less. But a glorious spring day, a 4-2 win (which sent the opposition down with us) meant that any thoughts of protest soon evaporated in the warm sunshine. We were happy bunnies.

After a week of flu scares and  wavering governments  it is good to sit here with a glass of Jameson's,  the wonderful Amiina playing in the background, laughter upstairs as my son's darts evening with his mates moves towards a pulsating climax and the prospect of a day off tomorrow on what promises to be yet another beautiful spring day. Does it get better than this? Probably not.  Reality will intrude soon enough and in ways which are unwelcome. But for now I am, as they say, seizing the moment.

Peace Prize

Sunday morning always starts early and in particular starts with  Sunday, Radio 4's weekly religious magazine. Today's programme picked up on the item that was doing the rounds before Easter about the funding of hospital chaplains by the NHS. The National Secular Society were protesting that such support was not a proper charge on the public purse. The costs, they argue,  should instead be borne by churches and individual patients exercising  personal choice. Costs UK wide are said to be around £31m although workings on the back of a few backs of fag packets have the figure as high as £44m. Thats quite a lot of  nurses, so the argument goes. And nurses are surely a better use of £30 - 40m than the chaplaincy. Enter the Taxpayers Alliance (Daily Mail with attitude) who, like the NSS,  believe this money could be better spent (or, I suspect, preferably not spent at all).

The work of hospital chaplains  is not an area that I know much about. It seems to me that when you are at a low ebb health wise (ie wondering whether you are actually going to get through this crisis)  some sort of spiritual support would be of great comfort. And I believe many are comforted this way.  But equally if I was say Richard Dawkins or Ricky Gervais, committed atheists both,   I might resent the intrusion. 

But this whole episode leaves a nasty taste. The NSS is being manipulative. If they believed their arguments stood up why come out with this research just before Easter?  I'd conclude that it was a spoiling tactic designed to catch the attention of the UK  media to the fact that they are still around at a time when we would otherwise forget about them .  Why get into bed with the Taxpayer's Alliance who have a very different agenda (and who frankly would be better advised to focus more attention on far worse examples of  taxpayer waste). And finally why try and persuade us that they are highly principled sweetness and reason itself, all about human rights  (everyone has the right to a religion or not to have one) and then focus on hospital chaplains as an example of religious privilege. The NSS agenda is dishonest. Like the BNP they would have us believe its about protecting the rights of all. They do not: the NSS want to eradicate religion.    

Valley of Gloom

Tomorrow's Championship fixtures sees the now  doomed Charlton team visit the side    one place above them in the table, Southampton. Southampton still have a good chance of surviving the drop but the news for their fans this week of the decision to put the clubs parent company into adminstration will mean that there will be all round gloom and despondency at St Mary's.

     

Until recently both sides were in the top tier of English football. Charlton's collapse has been spectacular, Southampton's less so but with both clubs struggling financially the outcome for both is likely to be the same. Administration may also prompt the Football League to impose a 10-point penalty on the hapless Saints, a fact that would make an early return to the Championship all the more difficult.

The economics of football has been the subject of much media coverage,  even books. What is undoubtedly true is that the game seems at one level to be a huge success story. Our big 4 (Man Utd, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal) do well in Europe and are able to flex financial muscle to attract stars from across the world to play in England. Premiership sides generally benefit from the rights money paid by Sky and others to compete for star names and more importantly to attract new owners to invest (or lend) significant money as a route to success. Just below the top 4 there is a clutch of 4-6 teams close to competing for the top prizes - notably Aston Villa, Manchester City , Everton and Tottenham.  Their natural place tends to be the UEFA cup and semi-finals/losing finalists of domestic competitions but the challenge is developing. 

The galaxy of star players on view combined with the frantic pace and  rather greater degree of unpredictability of English football  means that the Premiership's attractions are no longer confined to England. It is truly a mass global product, happily consumed in China and Malaysia  as well as it is in Europe. 

But beyond the glitz I believe the game is less healthy.   For years we have prided ourselves on our achievement of having 92 professional teams in 4 divisions; a game in which teams like little Wimbledon can have a tilt at the top; in which the smaller clubs could survive by supplementing match day income and other local fundraising initiatives through the sale of promising players to teams in the higher divisions. That model still exists but now takes it place alongside the market place that exists world wide for players to ply their trade in the Premiership. Europe and Africa now represent a wider catchment area for talent scouts and that shows in the starting line up of a number of Premiership teams, notably Arsenal. 

Alongside that is the issue of player power. This is not the sort of player power that simply dictates how Directors and Managers  run the club (although it can result in the unseating of a manager) but is more about the leverage they can exercise over contracts. The fact is that clubs either meet the asking price or lose the player to their rivals. This  has resulted in the phenomenon of players income becoming the predominantly major part of a club's outlay. Some have a wages policy which ensures that no more than a given percentage of income goes out in players wages. But it is not always the case and for some clubs upwards of 80%, even 90% is going straight from the Tv companies and turnstiles into players' pockets.  The well publicised saga of Kaka's transfer suggested his contract would have been worth £500k per week. That was exceptional although many of our top earners will be negotiating contracts worth up to £150k per week. This probably several times more than many of the fans who turn up to watch (and who thus help contribute to their wages) will earn in a year. 

Sky have undoubtedly done most to create this wage inflation. There is growing awareness of the phenomenon and even a website which challenges whether the trend is good for the game 

http://www.footballerswages.com/?page_id=21

What is undoubtedly true is that to compete in this League everyone in the Premiership has to pay its players Premiership wages. That's Ok so long as the club is in the Premiership. Unfortunately each season 3 clubs are relegated into the Championship. That means that  significant losses of rights money take place and a club has to retrench financially. Many clubs like Charlton and Southampton find the adjustment difficult to make, they have to sell their best players and effectively rebuild a team from scratch. If that doesn't prove successful then the inevitable consequence is that the team struggles in what is a competitive 2nd tier of domestic football and risks further decline. So we then get into a vicious tailspin from which clubs find it difficult to recover. Two of them meet today at St Mary's, Southampton.

I have no instant solutions but I think at the very least we need those in the game to take stock of what is happening and decide whether something can be done to preserve our traditional structures. I would suggest its urgent: the gap between the top 4 and the lower ends of the professional game will continue to widen as TV rights deals get ever greater. And in an economic recession clubs at the wrong end may decide that survival is impossible and throw in the towel.  

Football survives on our money. We part with it at the turnstiles and pay over our subscriptions to Sky. I think the game owes it to all its fans to ensure greater stability at the lower levels.  Its not as if its short of money.