Rich Man Joins Social Network! Fails to Engage the Lower Classes!

As of about 8.15am, on Wednesday 20h March 2013, Gideon 'George' Osbourne joined the quagmire of nonsense that is Twitter. Not that anyone will really care after about 5 minutes of realising and once they've sent one tweet expressing their opinion of him. His first foray into the muddy waters was a brief, not overly insightful and rather self-indulgent:

'Today I'll present a Budget that tackles the economy's problems head on helping those who want to work hard & get on'

It was made worse by the use of this picture as an accompaniment:

                                       
I won't spend any time attempting to present some form of analysis of the picture, how it's structured or what it says about Gideon's PR people. I'll just settle for stating the obvious; it's clearly faked as no one can actually write with a suitcase on their desk. He's also holding his pen next to a typed section - with no sign of wet ink in sight - but I'm going to leave the analysis to the experts/ obsessives/ people who have nothing better to do than write sprawling blog entries about politicians vague attempts to engage with the public.

I'm not entirely sure what to make of the decision taken by Gideon's team to introduce him to Twitter, or what effect they think it'll have on his non-existent popularity. If anything it'll just give people an easy avenue through which they can vent their fury at the 'verified' account of one of the many incompetent people charged with the job of running the country.

Not that Gideon's team would ever let him actually look at the replies for fear of him feeling bullied and wondering 'why the peasants don't like what I'm doing'.

So as to not disregard all analysis, I should point out that what I can skim from the phrasing of this introduction, notably the reference to 'work hard and get on' aside from opening up possibilities for cheap innuendo, is that it's a phrase which will please the right-wing press as it'll mean they can say 'OSBOURNE ATTACKS BENEFIT SCROUNGERS IN BUDGET'. This is somewhat ironic given the stereotypical demographic of such newspapers.

I am also glad that he is hoping to present a budget which will 'tackle the economy's problems' as if there was another option; 'a budget which won't really help anyone except those who are too rich to care, like me'.  It is after all, the job of the Government to make sure that things don't go all Greek over here. Or Spanish, Portuguese, Icelandic...

Ultimately though, I do rather wish that politicians would spend less time attempting to interact with people via social networks and spend more time getting on with the job which they are paid to do. A shocking and controversial opinion I know. If this latest foray into the 21st Century is being thought of as an attempt to 'digitalise' those in power and 'engage with the big web of chatter' that is the internet. Then I must once again ask you this; do you really think that anyone who doesn't already follow the news either online, television, radio or print will somehow be introduced to Gideon now that he's come down to their level? I doubt it.

I like to have some insight and analysis with my news, and I don't always like it to come straight from the horses mouth, as by the time it's reached it there have already been numerous meetings to finalise each and every syllable which he will then say to the press such that it needs an interpreter to actually work out what was 'not' being said. There's going to be hundreds of blogs about Gideon, Twitter and the Budget today.

Isn't the internet fun.

I'm no Economist, but I can't escape the feeling that if we just stopped fiddling, the world would sort itself out

                                

Money, money, money, no one really understands what to do with it

At the end of last week, the EU leaders agreed on a 'historic' budget for the next seven years of something like £900bn. The actual figure was calcuated in Euros, but when you're dealing with numbers of this size, currency and exchange rates are pretty irrelevant. We'd be better off just saying 'a lot of money' or 'more money that any of us could ever really conceive of in any tangible way. It was also apparently a 'Victory' for DC as he'd achieved a 'cut' in the overall budget, but Britain's contributions were going to continue to rise. Meaning that Nigel Farage had an excuse to get on tv again, something which none of us really want. 

On the subject of Mr Farage, I'd like to take this opportunity to quote a tweet, of which I cannot recall the author, but whoever they are this is their joke: 'Voting UKIP because you don't like Labour or the Tories is like saying "I don't like Coke or Pepsi so I'll drink piss"'. 

It's unlikely that any of us will actually feel any noticable effect of the new deal with Europe, not that that justifies an obfuscation of the matter, as it does remain important. The point which I'm trying to make here is that getting up and angry about the actual economics seems to be a waste of time, unless you're an economist who understands what the problems (or otherwise) are with the way the deal has been done and why such large sums of money are being passed around in cyberspace. 

It's a similar issue with many of the broad sweeping cuts and the headlines that accompany them. Take this story for example 'Inheritance tax freeze to fund social care cap of £75,000'. In principle, I understand what they're trying to achieve. Which is people not having to pay for care when they reach retirement age, I can also see that what Jeremy *unt is attempting to do is tax people who get a large inheritance in order to pay for those who don't have much left to give when they die as they've sold it all to pay for care. 

Actually, this is a relatively straightforward example of how the Government is trying to make things better, however, as you read down the article it soon becomes clear that things are going to cost £Xbn or £Ym making the entire plan seem grossly over-complicated. This is accompanied by the news that the UK Economy 'slipped back towards recession in the last quarter of 2013'. What does that actually mean though?! When growth is less than 0.5% the only people who seem to be getting concerned over the economics are economists. 

Despite the fate of both Jessops and HMV in the first month of January (the latter of which is downsizing but looks to be moving towards some kind of resolution) for many other business (including the small business for which I work) business has greatly improved in the first 6 weeks of the new year.  

Why Gove's U-Turn on Assessment is Demonstrative of the Power of Speech, and how the Coalition can actually be for the better.

Sorry Govey, you've lost this one mate. 

Although it might seem odd, and somewhat eccentric, I almost cheered on a crowded train when I first read that Michael Gove had been forced to scrap his plans for a new (old) exam system in Britain for 16 year olds. A joke which I should credit to Andy Hamilton; 'Michael Gove wants us to return to the exam system that produced Michael Gove'; pretty much says it all about why we should be worried about any plans which he has to 'reform' education. 

I'd become a known bore on the subject of Gove and his pans to ruin future generations by saddling them with a single percentage instead of a grade and reducing their entire 12 years of education to a single day and a single paper. I had been somewhat skeptical that the plans would actually get through  and survive another Government. Given that they were due to be instigated until 2015. The year when the next election is due. 

I'm not anti-reform of the system, and I do think that there does need to be a re-think of the competition which has been introduced by having numerous exam boards. Having a centralised exam board would solve accountancy problems, but it would leave them unaccountable to anyone else. Anyone who has been through University will be aware that it can take months for work to be returned due to it being looked at  by 'External Markers' a.k.a Academics from other Universities who mark the work independently to ensure that everyone is being assessed on a level playing field. Although there is an argument that this could be done by teachers from different schools. It's a thorny issue to say the least.

How we assess people's ability at 16 has become less significant since the introduction of compulsory education until the age of 18, where qualifications have become more of a 'stepping stone' to the next stage rather than anything else. It is important that people's strength's and weaknesses are determined and I don't favour the complete eradication of assessment at 16, but it's a subject which should be dealt with lightly. As the decisions made will have major consequences on thousands of lives. 

A lot of that is beside the point today however, when what we are acknowledging is the power of objection to reforms by the adults most qualified to make the decisions about how children should be assessed. I'm not going to reproduce the details here, I'll instead harness the power of the internet and give you a link to the superb piece in the Guardian, which has all the details you need, here's that link.

It is also a sign that having a Coalition Government can be for the better. Whatever people may think of  the Lib Dems, they have had a hand in stopping Gove in his tracks. I'm not going to rake over old ground and re-ignite discussions about the morality (or otherwise) of making people pay for Higher Education, as that's not relevant here. 

After a week which started with a debate in parliament over whether or not people are 'equal' in today's society, we're looking to finish it with the news that whilst things might need to change, it needs more thought than just being nostalgic. 

Shock! Former British Prime Minister photograped with now Dead Dictator

Think back, to the year 2009, before the Arab Spring, before Cleggmania and the ConDems, before Downton Abbey and Call the Midwife, Sherlock and before Avatar proved that 3D cinema was never going to catch on properly. It's not really that long ago, fewer than four years in fact, but it already feels like a lifetime. An awful lot has happened since and the world is a very different place. iPads were a thing of the future and the Liberal Democrats were still floating in relative political insignificance, with only a dedicated few aware that they even existed.Think back, I wonder if you remember this picture:

                                     
It was taken when the man convicted of blowing up Pam Am Flight 103 (also known as the Lockerbie Bombing)  Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, had been released back to Libya as he'd been diagnosed with terminal cancer and had been allowed to return to his country of birth to die (something which didn't happen until May 2012, but that's another matter). At the point when this happened, the struggling Labour Government managed to infuriate many people by deeming that a man should have the right to return to his homeland. Still though, that's not really the crux of what I'm getting at here.

In the aftermath of the Arab Spring, the deaths of thousands of Libyan's in a bitter civil war and the eventual mass-participation in snuff movie production when Gaddafi was finally killed. How does this photo look? It didn't look brilliant at the time it was taken and there were people even then questioning the morality of Our Glorious Leader shaking hands with a known dictator.

In all honesty though, when one looks back through history there are many occasions which, with hindsight, now look rather different. You may, or may not be aware of the hideous nature of Joseph Stalin, the mass murder and poverty which he inflicted upon his own people and the fact that he was photographed numerous times with Winston Churchill. This defining image of Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin, meeting during the Second World War is arguably seen very differently now, to then:

                                   
Why then, was there such mass hysteria when an episode of young children's program transmitted an episode in which a character imitated Jimmy Savile presenting Top of the Pops was broadcast early on Sunday morning. The episode in question had been made in 2001, long before Savile's crimes were discussed openly. The false outrage was almost laughable, yes, Savile was a strange man and there have been revelations about how he abused his privileged position. That doesn't make a show which makes only mild reference to Savile, a reference which only adults would understand, in a context for which he was very well known, offensive.

It might seem a little tasteless to some, and perhaps it's better now that the episode has been permanently removed circulation because of the associations which Savile's unique presenting style has with far darker actions. 

What we shouldn't have to do though, is apologise for history. At the time the program was made no one shouted in outrage, and no one really has the right to do so now either. The episode wasn't 'hidden away' and it's core audience won't have any idea of who Savile was and they'll probably only see him as a figure of history. 

Anyone intrigued by the slurry of recent Savile-related outrage from certain morally questionable tabloids might be interested in this article. I hate giving them hits, but it's worth remembering that it's not only the BBC who need to check their archives. 

Jessops: The latest casualty of Online Shopping

Edit: Since this blog was firs published, Jessops has closed down entirely. My thoughts go out to those now seeking employment.

Note: This blog is based on my personal experiences and no locations will be given. I realise that the possibility of losing your job is horrible and that going into administration is a very serious matter. This is just my own perspective.

                      

Location: A Jessops High street store

(Customer walks into store, looks at a selection of Canon cameras)
Shop Assistant: Hello sir, can I help you?
Customer: Yes, I'd like to look at a Canon 50mm f1.8 (about £90) lens please
Shop Assistant: Ok, I'll be right back.
(Shop assistant returns with a Nikon 50mm f1.2 (about £600, and the wrong make)
Customer: That's the wrong make, it won't fit my camera, and it's six times the price of the one which I had intended to purchase.
Shop Assistant: (with blank expression) Isn't it cross compatable? I'm sure they are, you're using a Canon and I'm sure that they fit Canon.

It was experiences like this, alongside pretty horrendous mark-ups, that put me off buying from my local Jessops. I do have friend's who've worked for Jessops and am aware that they would never do something as idiotic as the example above. The broader point though, is that Jessops' business plan seems to have been something akin to constantly balancing more and more empty cans without any support or ballast hoping that they wouldn't fall over.

The company has been in existence since 1935 and I know that it would be a travesty for it to disappear. I know that going into administration isn't the equal to liquidation but there will certainly be fewer Jessops on the high street. The problem with a store like Jessops is much like that which forced Comet out of business. Stores which thrive on selling expensive products, with only a limited amount of day to day items that people are likely to purchase, it's a difficult endeavour.

Whilst Supermarkets do sell expensive electronics, they also sell very cheap products. This is why they can become so successful, and continue to stay open. People will always need food. They will not always need cameras. I've brought 2 cameras in 2 years, both of them second hand and whilst I have brought accessories for them both, Jessops has more often than not been the most expensive (and least helpful) option.

I do have anecdotal accounts of Jessops shop assistants being directed to sell DSLRs when in fact what the customer needs is a compact. Or the example above of bringing out the completely wrong lens, putting me off ever going back into the store. As I said before, I'm not trying to tarnish them all with the same brush but these are genuine experiences. In a world where the High Street store carries less and less value from the perspective of the consumer, no one wants a bad reputation.

This isn't a fault with the individuals but rather with the companies training program. If someone who works for you can't tell the difference between Canon and Nikon, or more likely doesn't realise that their products are not cross-compatible, the fault lies with the person that gave the assistant the ok to go out and interact with the public. On this occasion, as with everytime such a thing has happened to me, I explained that that's not the case and that I would need a Canon fit. Not everyone is so polite.

It would seem that the overall business strategy of continuing to open more and more stores as the economic situation remains stagnate and people have less disposable income year on year is a deeply flawed one. In truth though, the Photography service business has taken a serious hit in the past decade since Jessops opened their 200th store in the shape of Digital Photography and cheap home printing. Photo sharing is now something done primarily online and people simply don't have the need to get photos developed and printed.

When was the last time you actually looked at a photo album? Let put one together using shop purchased prints from negatives. No, I can't remember either. It was probably sometime around 2003. The truth is that from a purely consumerist perspective we don't actually need shops like Jessops. We can get our photos developed via post, print our own photos on the machines in Boots, get all the advice we need from online blogs and reviews and easily return a camera to the online store we brought it from if we decide that it's the wrong one for us. It's sad but true.

Shopping is becoming increasingly dehumanised, which is great if you're neurotic, but some of us actually like to buy things from real people.

Thanks Nigel, but we're all glad you don't want to be PM

                     
                        

UKIP Leader Nigel Farage realises that this is as good as it gets.

In an interview he gave today to the Grauniad the android faced leader of the UK Independence Party. Plane crash survivor and slightly righter-right winger Nigel Farage confessed that he 'doesn't ever want to to be Prime Minister'. This will come as a relief to some, but only a few. As there can only be a few people who would ever genuinely consider becoming worried about the possibility of a UKIP-led Government. Granted that it is more likely than one led by Nick Clegg. 

That he would consider entering into a coalition with the Tories is no surprise. What would be a surprise would be if it were to actually happen. Those people who paid particular attention to the last General Election in 2010  may recall a brief time when a few of us held out for a Labour-Lib-Small Parties Coalition. It was never going to happen. Unless the Tory and UKIP votes both increase significantly in 2015, they'll both find themselves without a majority. Unless they side with the BNP.

Dear old Dishface put his foot in the racial row back in 2006 by calling UKIP 'closet racists'. They're not racist, just, as the interview demonstrates, overly idealistic about Britain and their hopes for what 'Great Britain' means. That Farage laments not being able to have a drink in the country pub on a Sunday afternoon feels terribly nostalgic. The problem with nostalgia being that it recalls only the best of times. So yes, a Britain with Country Pubs, independence from the EU and all the shops closed on a Sunday would be nice. I'm not so sure about rationing, mainstream fascism, sexism and widespread poverty are quite such appealing aspects of the 20th Century which Farage and pals would like to see return.

I'm not a Royalist, but I don't hate the Queen, I just don't think we should pay for her. I'm a liberal but I don't think that there is a conspiracy of the Right to screw us all out of our Pensions. Nor do I think that Higher Education should necessarily be something paid for entirely by those who don't choose to take that path. I'm what most people call a human being, with opinions just like any other human being and whether or not you agree with me. You don't have any reason to hate me, or call me crazy. 

Nigel Farage isn't bonkers, despite what he says about the kind of people he wants in his party. There are aspects of his views with which I sympathise (hey, in 2001, UKIP campaigned on the basis of keeping the Pound - which in hindsight was a pretty wise move). What I find objectionable about Nigel Farage, I actually find to be a fundamental flaw with politicians as a whole. A tendency to over-zealous rhetoric and the constant quest to give out the right kind of soundbite. 

UKIP are at best the presentable face of reactionary politics - although 99% of political posturing is reactionary as it is. I don't doubt that they have views beyond Britain leaving Europe, an Englishmans right to his pint and an objection to Gay Marriage based on outdated ideological views. 

On that last topic Nigel is actually a good example of the typical psuedo-Anglican who gets enraged about the fact that two people of the same gender can get married in the place where they go for Christmas, Easter, Funerals, Christenings and (straight) Weddings. On the basis of which I should be able to say that all Wetherspoons should serve Michelin Star Food and have table service. I mean, I go there about once every two months (more often that Farage goes to church) so I have the right to make a claim about how the place should be run, despite knowing noting about how to run a budget pub chain. 

In truth, not that many people will care about Farage not gunning for 10 Downing Street. For two reasons; firstly, the chances of him actually getting there are incredibly slim and secondly, he'd have to be tied into a Coalition deal to actually get a foot in the door so it's unlikely that much legislation would ever get through during his time in office. So not that different to the current establishment then.

That said, stranger things have happened. This man is going to run for election again, after getting clear of jail thanks to a piece of legislation which he ensured passed into law:

               

Oh World. You are funny.