Monday Moan 66

 

POTS AND KETTLES

The Public Accounts Committee under the expert and entirely neutral guidance of its shy and retiring Chair, Margaret Hodge, has produced its report into the rural broadband programme.  Readers may recall the evidence session and the wholly out-of-character combative approach adopted by Ms Hodge (see Moan 57 and others). 

 

The Report contains no surprises.  No mention of who has actually written it, or of who advised the Committee. Most of it looks as though it was written before the evidence session and has just had a few sentences added to reflect what was said on the day, as well as to add things that the Committee “has been told” subsequently. 

 

What I hadn’t realised previously was that the Committee’s investigation attracted only five submissions in total, and that Fujitsu, the last company to withdraw from the bidding process for Government funding, was not one of them.  So the Committee never got to ask them why they withdrew.  That would have been instructive, wouldn’t it?  Maybe there is a clue in the statement from Duncan Tait, CEO of Fujitsu, commenting on their withdrawal from one of the earlier bids – “We withdrew because we cannot currently see a clear path towards a mass market that is required to attract leading retail service providers.”  So, a straightforward commercial decision. No conspiracy. No mismanagement by the Government. No plot from BT.

 

The report is shoddy. It simply reiterates what the Committee thought all along. It has not been swayed in the slightest by the rebuttal of many of its positions by the witnesses it heard. It has taken no account, apparently, of BT’s 83-point response to statements made by Committee members during the hearing.

 

I like the comment from one observer that it’s ironic to have a group of MPs moaning about the lack of value for money for the public in the broadband programme.  Pots and kettles, and all that.  And the same commentator reasonably adds that whilst he’s “not  a big fan of BT, if they don’t install rural broadband who will? No one else sees it as a viable commercial risk to get involved. We don’t see Sky or TalkTalk getting involved, they just moan about BT all the time.”

 

 

 

TIME TO GROW UP AND MOVE ON?

In President Obama’s first term, one of the most important of his achievements was to steer his healthcare reforms through the legislative process against the fiercest of opposition from his Republican opponents (and a few of his Democratic colleagues as well).  As mentioned in Moan 21, Obama’s plan to extend access to healthcare provisions to the poorer members of society – including the roughly 15% of Americans who have no health insurance – was considered by some to be an example of his communist beliefs.

 

I woke this morning to hear on the radio that the US Government was about to seize up, technically running out of money because the Congress has not yet passed a short-term funding Bill.  And the reason for this is that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives is still fighting the ObamaCare health law (actually called the Affordable Care Act) passed in 2010.  The Democratic-controlled Senate will vote down the Republican spoiling tactic and Obama himself retains the veto over their proposals.  Leading light in the campaign of opposition is trustworthy Senator Ted Cruz, ex-lawyer, policy advisor to George W Bush, ex-Texan Solicitor-General, endorsed by the Tea Party.

 

This is not the first time the US Government has almost run out of money – and the most recent occasion was also caused by opposition to the healthcare reforms. But why is this still continuing three years after the law was passed?  

 

Lots of angles to this, including the uncomfortable fact that a Democratic President and Senate have to work with a Republican House of Representatives.  The ‘checks and balances’ of the American system actually make governing that country a bit of a nightmare (and that’s without considering the split of responsibilities between the Federal and State Governments).  This system of Government relies upon funding being approved periodically and the Obamacare reforms, although now part of the law, are scheduled to take effect gradually over a number of years.  So still plenty of opportunities for showboating by the opposition.

 

It’s also the case that whilst the healthcare reforms might seem sensible, obvious and mild to many in this country, they are designed to help the 15% or so of Americans who have been too poor or too ill to be able to get health insurance up to now.  The 85% in the other camp are almost unaffected.  This means that gathering the support of the 85% majority to help the remaining 15% is critical and it seems that the great American public aren’t quite ready for this.  Opinion polls suggest that a majority of people think the reforms will make their own costs higher, even though a majority also confess to not knowing what the proposals are or at least to not understanding them or how they will be affected by them.

 

Most telling of all, it seems that 73% of people are already satisfied with their healthcare arrangements.  Assuming that this 73% are to be found within the 85% who have health insurance, it is pretty obvious that human nature and the cult of looking after your own interests rather than those of others means that there is not going to be huge public support for helping the disenfranchised 15%.

 

For the nation that proclaims itself to be the leader of the free world and the shining beacon demonstrating why democractic government is the system all countries should follow, this is a sad state of affairs.  Self-interest, from politicians and citizens alike, appears to be the order of the day.  Posturing for electoral purposes by politicians is an inevitable element of a democratic system, much as we might wish it to be otherwise, but many Republicans in the USA seem so completely detached from anything other than their own rhetoric that, frankly, I don’t know whether to laugh or to fear for the future. 

 

I choose to laugh, but it’s a close decision.

 

 

GNOMES OF ZURICH

The annual extortion that is my house insurance is up for renewal.  The paperwork arrives – showing an increase of around 20% on last year’s premium.  So I call the company concerned (let’s call them Zurich).  Nice young man answers and agrees that my premium has gone up rather a lot, and that I have had no claims since last time.  The explanation is that they have put up all their prices by around 20%.  As if I didn’t know.

 

So we move onto the next stage.  I ask what they can do to reduce this extortionate premium.  Nothing at all, apparently.  Nothing apart from suggest that I take out a reduced level of cover that is.  What a strange idea – trying to sell me less insurance.

 

Gnomes of Zurich = Swiss bankers.  Bunch of them, I’d say.

 

 

 

ENTERPRISING ADVERTISING

Hats off to the Yorkshire Tourist Board for this brilliant example of subliminal advertising on the shirts of German side Wolfsburg.

Monday Moan 57

It’s for you – please pick up!

Lucy Kellaway, writing for the BBC Magazine, says that the telephone is no longer needed, because she does everything by email;

 

“We are now witnessing the death of the office landline, and with it the main switchboard.

 

If anyone really wants me, they send me an email, and because I don't like random disturbances ..... I've stopped answering my desk phone altogether.

 

The other day I checked my voicemail and found 100 messages stretching back over weeks. Guess what I'd missed? Nothing of any note at all.”

 

Sorry Lucy, you are wrong on so many levels.  For a start, some people would say you are behind the times and that email itself is now dead because everyone is using social media instead.  I think this is wrong too, but it just demonstrates that there are always those who see themselves as being at the forefront of whatever the latest trend is who will proclaim the death of the old way of doing things.

 

In fact, Lucy is a brilliant example of the kind of person who is so frustrating to the vast majority of normal people.  The majority of us answer our phones because we know that nobody makes a call without having a good reason for doing so (unless they are just trying to sell you something, of course).  A phone call is so much more immediate and satisfying that an email.  And you can’t pretend that all emails are vital and need immediate attention.  By all means don’t answer the phone if the number is withheld, if it appears to be from someone trying to sell you something, if you can see it’s from someone you don’t want to speak to, or if you really can’t be disturbed at that particular time.  But please pick up normal calls and please check your voicemail and then get back to people who need to speak with you!  I wouldn’t mind betting that many of the 100 messages she claims were of no note were from people who were then forced to email her instead, thus causing extra work and taking longer than a simple phone call would have done.

 

 

Define selfish ……..

A series of programmes about different aspects of keeping London’s roads going has been surprisingly captivating over recent weeks.  I loved the lady who offered her opinion on a road patching repair to the gang who had just done the work – “I could do better than that ….. that’s rubbish ….. it’s not very technical is it, it’s like icing a cake, you put the base on, then you stamp it down, then you put the top bit on, you’re meant to leave it smooth".  

It was hard to disagree with her and she said it all in such a perfectly calm and non-aggressive way that the labourers involved did not take offence or feel threatened.

 

 

As with all such programmes, however, there were those who said things that were just nonsense.  A cyclist taking part in one of the regular Critical Mass events that see hundreds of cyclists clogging up the centres of cities said; “Of course we are annoying people this evening,  ‘cos what we are doing is in some ways selfish, but then everyone on the road is being selfish.”  

 

Well no, that’s not true, is it?  Most people who venture onto the roads do so because they need to get somewhere.  That’s not being selfish, that’s the whole purpose of roads.  On the other hand, using the roads for no purpose other than to deny to others their freedom to use the roads, with no thought as to the possible consequences for those delayed by their actions, is not just selfish but arrogant and potentially dangerous. 

 

 

Out of office and out of mind?

The out of office message is a great invention. It allows you to know that the intended recipient of your email is not around and, if that mail requires some urgent action, who to contact in the absence of the first person.

 

So much for the theory.  In practice, of course, it doesn’t always work out quite like this.  This little chain of messages from last week is, unfortunately, not uncommon. All names have been changed to save any embarrassment ……….

 

To Peter:

“Dear Peter, I am writing to you hoping you will be able to help with […….] I look forward to hearing from you soon.”

 

From Peter:

“I am currently on leave and will be back in the office on 2^nd September.

If the matter is urgent, please contact Paul on paul@xxxxxx.org.uk or phone 0123 456789.”

 

OK, I thought, no problem and thanks for letting me know.  Wasting no time, I forwarded the original message to the person mentioned in the out of office message –

 

To Paul:

“Dear Paul, I see I have missed Peter, no doubt on a well-deserved holiday. I imagine, from his out of office message, that you have not yet set off on holiday yourself, so wonder if you could have a look at this please and let me have any comments?”

 

From Paul:

“I am currently on leave and will be back in the office on 2^nd September.

If the matter is urgent, please contact Peter on peter@xxxxxx.org.uk or phone 0123 567890.”

 

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh!

 

 

Last time before the summer break

Someone said to me last week that they thought I had a bit of a thing about Margaret Hodge and that I didn’t like her.  Reading the Moan over the past year might give you that idea, but in fact my issue is not personal and I am not picking on her. It’s just that she is the most high profile and irritating of those politicians who display a particular kind of arrogance and who abuse their positions to promote their own, often ill-informed, opinions without stopping to consider alternative views on their merits.

 

MPs are now on their summer break from their formal Parliamentary duties and so the Moan can take a break from commenting upon their posturing, particularly in Select Committee inquiries.  But I couldn’t resist the temptation to award Stuart McIntosh, Director of Competition at Ofcom, the accolade of ‘Best Witness in dealing with Hodgewallop’ for his handling of Margaret Hodge last week.  McIntosh was giving evidence to her Committee but failing to say the things she wanted to hear, so in time-honoured Hodge fashion she simply kept interjecting her own comments whenever he didn’t say the right thing.  McIntosh was having none of this and twice within a minute he corrected her – she didn’t like it at all. You can listen to the exchange here. A few minutes later she became exasperated with him not saying what she wanted to hear and started to ‘correct’ him by regurgitating what another witness had told her, but she couldn’t quite remember what had been said so asked that other witness (who was not actually giving evidence) to intervene. McIntosh took all this and then very clearly said that he personally had invited that complaining witness to present some evidence to his organisation so that they could then take action. Unfortunately, no such evidence had been produced – with the very clear inference to be drawn that the witness was simply using the system to complain, without there being any substance to those complaints.  What you could term, ‘playing the system’.  Hodge’s response?  A disgruntled “I hear you.” You can listen to this exchange here.

 

I’d like to think that Margaret Hodge might use her summer break to ponder on her performance and to wonder whether she might be being manipulated by those who have spotted her penchant for publicity and are just feeding her lines they know will feed her ego.  But I’m not holding my breath.

Monday Moan 56

Don't waste my time by disagreeing with me

Margaret Hodge was at her most combative, argumentative, intransigent and rude in a session about rural broadband last week.  She has form (see Moan 44 and others, for example).

 

The initial session of the hearing started with Margaret Hodge giving an open and friendly platform to BT’s competitors to put their points to the Committee, including the CEO of one company which has not, so far, invested a single penny in the UK.  No such luxury or latitude was afforded to the witness from BT, who found himself being hectored, told he was wrong, and being ridiculed by Hodge. She disagreed with him when he quoted facts, relying in some cases on the obviously much more reliable evidence of “an industry insider told me”.  Her sidekick Richard Bacon, MP (no, not the Radio 5 broadcaster, although the latter would undoubtedly be a more thoughtful, serious and useful person to have on the Committee), spent the session looking to raise a laugh and trying to make fun of the BT witness – he told him he should consider a career as a Jesuit priest (because he could say that black was white) and then that he should have been a comedian, because he had the temerity to deny that BT had a monopoly on superfast broadband.  “Boom, boom” was the intelligent contribution of Bacon (the MP) to that, ignoring the witness pointing out that Virgin Media had a larger share of the retail market than BT.

 

Ian Swales, MP tried to be clever by saying that decisions on building infrastructure did not depend on likely use - “You don’t build a road based on how many cars are going to use it, you just build the road.”  Oh dear.  Back to school for Ian I’m afraid.  Of course investment in infrastructure takes account of expected demand.  Do we need a new road, and if so, does it need to be single carriageway or a multi-lane motorway?  How on earth does he think we get to the answer without taking account of likely usage of that road?  Similarly regarding investment in almost any other infrastructure like schools, airports, etc.  Poor old Ian also had a whole argument with Government officials at the next session haranguing them for blocking the possibility of using fixed wireless solutions, when in fact this was completely the opposite of what the witness had said, and Swales was forced to apologise for his misinterpretation.

 

Margaret Hodge and Richard Bacon spent large amounts of time having side conversations, distracting the witnesses and showing huge disrespect to them.  She complained that witnesses were not answering her questions, but what she actually meant was that their answers did not match her pre-conceptions. She got so frustrated by this refusal of witnesses to agree with her that her aside of “Oh Jesus” at one point caused one of the MPs on the Committee to note that this was inappropriate and un-Parliamentary language.

 

The thing is, we pay for these people and we have a right to expect that they will conduct themselves appropriately. This should include objectivity and giving witnesses both a chance to be heard and the right to say things that conflict with the Committee members’ pre-conceived notions and positions, without being accused of lying or having their evidence dismissed out of hand.

 

Value for money?  I don’t think so.  Maybe there should be an investigation into the value for money of the Public Accounts Committee?

 

 

It’s a heatwave – but not in Rochester (again)

The UK is experiencing a heatwave – it’s all relative, of course, but here in the UK we are not used to high temperatures, so a few consecutive days of them constitutes a heatwave.  Anyway, we have now had something like 10 days of hot weather – with the one exception being last Saturday, when we went to Rochester to sing at their annual open-air ‘Prom’ concert.  This always takes place on the third Saturday in July, and it seems that it is traditional that whatever the weather has been doing on other days, on the day of the concert the weather will be rubbish. 

 

This year was no exception.  Temperatures of around 30c on other days disappeared and a more typical 18c was reached – for one day only, of course, as the hot weather returned the following day. It was cold, it was windy, the extra layers of clothing were all needed – but it was still great fun and we’d certainly do it again!

 

 

ITN – they decide what’s news

Yesterday’s Independent Television News decided that the main news was that the Prime Minister had again refused to answer repeated questions about whether or not he had discussed proposed rules on health warnings on tobacco products with one of his advisers, Lynton Crosby, who works for a PR firm whose clients include tobacco companies.

I would be amazed if the two of them had not talked about this at some stage.  And I would add a very loud ‘SO WHAT?’  I’d rather he was talking to an adviser who actually knew something about the issues in question than someone with a theoretical knowledge, gleaned from something they had read or that had been sent to them.  Do people imagine that everything a politician says has sprung from their own imaginations or research?   That would be ridiculous.  Of course politicians are recipients of information, of ‘lobbying’ on a daily basis – that’s the only way the system can work.

 

Here’s the thing.  This ITN ‘story’ was actually gleaned from an interview on the BBC earlier in the day – and yet the BBC did not even think it newsworthy enough to mention in its own main news bulletin.  

 

Strange choice for ITN?  Well, they have a track record for choosing strange lead stories.  At the end of June, for example, they thought the most newsworthy story of the day was their own ‘investigation’ which revealed that some NHS Trusts were saving money by not having to pay VAT for certain services.  Nothing illegal about this, they acknowledged, but still worth interviewing Margaret Hodge (yes, her again) and elevating this above all other news of the day.  The story was delivered with all the seriousness the presenter could muster, managing to link the NHS with Starbucks and Google, who have also been accused of not paying tax that they did not need to pay.

 

Not much of a story really.

 

Have the BBC got it in for the England cricket team?

Not content with their previous attempt to make England get twice as many runs for victory as was actually the case (see Moan 52), the BBC were at it again last week in the First Test Match against Australia.  

 

Obviously worried that the Aussies were not able to make much of a game of it without some outside help, the BBC stepped in to show that 5 wickets had fallen when in fact only 4 had done so:-

 

Didn’t make any difference, of course, as the Aussies were beaten and then suffered a humiliating second defeat at the weekend.  Oh how they would have gloated had the boot been on the other foot.  We, of course, are more restrained – HA!

Monday Moan 44

The Hodge Diary

Just a run-of-the-mill week for that consummate seeker of a headline, yes, our very own Margaret Hodge, Labour MP and Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.  See last week’s Moan for the most recent story and for links to other Moans.

Only two reports from her Committee this week – on Managing the Academies Programme and on Tax avoidance and the role of large accountancy firms.

The tax report allowed the news channels to go over again the ‘it’s not fair that they don’t pay any tax’ issues that she milked so well last year (see Moan 27) and the report itself continued with the same line, despite there being no suggestion that what those companies or their advisors are doing is illegal – they are simply reading the laws that apply and then working within them to avoid paying tax that they don’t have to pay.  In other words, doing what every individual does in regard to their own tax position.

Not content with the media opportunities that these events provided, Hodge manufactured another dose of self-publicity with her attack on Parliamentary colleagues as being lazy (that plays well with the media and voting public).

But maybe I am the one out of step with the public mood here, at least with sections of the Guardian-reading public, if the gushing article about Hodge last week by Aida Edemariam is any guide? “Every age searches, however ironically, for heroes, and in a time lacking in such old-fashioned things, Margaret Hodge, Labour MP for Barking, and, since 2010, chair of the Public Accounts Committee, has emerged as an unlikely candidate.”

 

Have I missed something?

 

 

Vanity knows no bounds

A recent study, commissioned by the Department of Health, has suggested that there is a crisis waiting to happen with procedures such as injections to plump up the skin and remove wrinkles. Part of the problem seems to be that you don’t need to be medically qualified to be able to perform such procedures.

 

A BBC report on this last week included an interview with a lady who had just had some injections in her face - “everybody where I live wants to look good” was her explanation. Hmm.   

 

And then we had the episode of Masterchef, where the contestants had to prepare a meal at the Savoy for 12 Bond girls.  The picture we have in our minds of those we have seen on screen is one we have seen preserved for all time in the films themselves.  So, one of the fascinating things in this programme was to see the differences in the ways that the ladies had aged.  Many gracefully, some resisting in subtle ways.  And then there was Britt Ekland.  The price of cosmetic surgery appears to be an unnatural look and an inability to produce much by way of facial expression.

Everybody wants to look good.

 

Is it that difficult to take your trolley back?

There appears to be an epidemic of laziness or maybe it’s just lack of consideration, when people go to the supermarket for their shopping.

You know, you pick up a trolley either from one of the many trolley collection points dotted around the car park or from the neat line of them waiting for you at the entrance to the shop.

But once you have done your shopping and emptied the contents of the trolley into your car, it seems that an increasing number of people can’t be bothered to return the trolleys to one of those collection points. Instead, they either leave them where they are or perhaps move them a short distance from their car, and then they drive off. 

Is it too much to ask that people walk a short distance to return their trolleys, so as to avoid them blocking parking spaces, or scratching the paintwork of the cars they roll into when the wind blows? 

Lazy (why should I walk that distance) or untidy (someone else can do it for me)?  You tell me.

 

Farewell to …….

… Barnet FC, as they bow out of the League following their narrow failure to beat the drop in the last game for the fourth season in a row.  Their points total of 51 is a record high for a team being relegated from this division – that’s no consolation to them at all, I am sure.  Will they return some day?  Big question for a team that has struggled to attract crowds, being in the shadow of illustrious neighbours in the shape of Arsenal, and neighbours who think they are illustrious, in the shape of Tottenham. They have also had to contend with a local Council that has been so unhelpful that next season Barnet will open their new ground in a different Borough, so a big test as to whether their supporters will stick with them.

… ‘Honest Harry’ as his QPR side are relegated from the Premiership, despite their money and the supposedly magical powers of their manager.  No doubt he’ll do his usual wheeling and dealing in the summer. Wonder how many of the highly-paid people he brought in earlier in the season will be kept on board?

… Robin van Persie who was, apparently, disappointed with the reception he received from Arsenal fans when he returned to the Emirates Stadium for the match at the weekend.  Oh really?  Did he expect the fans to overlook what they see as his disloyalty and his decision to up sticks to one of their fiercest rivals, rather than repay the club for the loyalty shown to him over countless years of personal problems and seasons where he was injured so often he barely played?  Fans don’t expect players to stay forever, but they respect class. This is why Thierry Henry will always be loved by Arsenal fans. 

Monday Moan 43

Keep up ……. or keep quiet

Watching the news the other day that instant irritant Margaret Hodge appeared on my screen.  Readers of previous editions will understand that comment (see Moans 6 and 27). My immediate thought was what on earth had her House of Commons Public Accounts Committee (PAC) found worthy of an insightful and newsworthy report?

She didn’t disappoint me.  After months of deep investigation and consideration into last summer’s London Olympic Games, the PAC had decided that there was a bit of a problem with the security arrangements, and that ticket allocations had been flawed, with too many empty seats in the first few days in the areas set aside for officials and athletes .
 
None of this is news, of course.  So I’m not quite sure why the media decided it was important enough to interview Margaret Hodge yet again.
 

No doubt those who are responsible for such things in the Olympic movement in Lausanne and the organising committee for the next Games in Rio de Janiero are even now poring over the text of the report and the tapes of Margaret Hodge’s interviews in order to take heed of her advice.

  

 

Would you invite this man to dinner?

Amidst all the interest in the antics of Luis Suarez it is easy to forget that behind the headlines is a man shaped by his background, just like the rest of us. 

Little Luis comes from a poor Uruguayan family, one of seven children, and had to move to Europe in order to earn a crust.  His career has been blighted by allegations that he dives, acts, handles the ball, racially abuses other players and, on occasions, tries to eat them. He feels alone and that the world is against him.

 

Then he discovers that they have stopped the tradition of the half time orange that has been the main sustenance available to players during a game since the beginning of time.  Is it any wonder that he decides to snack on his opponents once in a while?

 

 

A gold star for Sainsbury’s

I have had occasion to complain in these Moans about the way Sainsbury’s have thrown away perfectly good food.  So, in the spirit of telling a good story when there is one, I am pleased to say that on a visit to the ‘offending’ branch at the weekend I witnessed them reducing the price of their cakes rather than throwing them away.  Good to see.

 

No stars for Marks & Spencer though

As one store rises in my estimation another descends.

 

In Marks & Spencer at the weekend I needed to use the toilet.  Standing there and minding my own business (required behaviour if you don’t want to be misunderstood) I heard the door open, someone stand there without coming in, and some rustling of paper.  Then the door closed.

 

Turning round I realised that the sheet of paper on which they record when they have ‘inspected’ the toilets had been on the wall just inside the door and that this must have been what I had heard rustling.  OK, I was grateful for the privacy I had been granted instead of someone coming in and giving the place a thorough inspection whilst it was being used, and I assumed that whoever was supposed to do the inspection was probably standing outside and waiting for me to leave.

 

But no, I soon realised that I had imagined a far greater sense of responsibility and tact on the part of Marks & Spencer than was actually true.  Looking at the inspection sheet as I went out I saw that even though it was only 15.30, the toilets had, apparently, been inspected and found to be clean at both 16.00 and 17.00 already! 

 

I was outraged and thought I’d take a photo of the sheet on my smartphone, with my wristwatch next to it to prove the deceit of the store. Fortunately, I soon decided that taking photographs in a public toilet was not a good idea after all, so you’ll just have to take my word for it!

  

Finally, a missing person appeal

Anybody seen Ed Miliband?  Missing without trace for too long now.

Monday Moan 27

Hands up all those who pay more tax than the law requires?

Perhaps it’s just me, but I can’t help wondering what all the fuss is about on the issue of taxation and whether or not companies are somehow finding ways of avoiding paying more tax than is necessary.

So many politicians (who themselves seem pretty keen to take maximum advantage of the rules, of course) are working themselves into a high state of moral indignation on this topic that I fear for their health unless they soon take one of their frequent extended holiday breaks.

I am fed up with seeing Margaret Hodge parade herself in front of the cameras every week to deliver another barrage about the ‘immorality’ of companies using the tax rules to pay the minimum amount of tax that they can – all perfectly legitimately, as it happens. If politicians don’t like it then this is not the fault of those who advise clients on tax strategies, but of those who made the rules in the first place.  Hodge last week harangued a witness appearing before her Public Accounts Committee (see Moan 6 and Moan 8 for previous comments on such Committees) with a string of aggressive questions, or rather statements designed to draw out the responses she wanted.  A bully at work.  But when she said “If the public knew you were in the business of deliberately avoiding tax they would think you were completely and utterly and totally immoral in the work you are doing” I had to pinch myself to check that I was not dreaming.  Was she really saying that someone was engaged in completely and utterly and total immoral work when what they were doing was promoting a scheme that had been advised to the tax authorities and approved by them as being perfectly legal? If you've nothing better to do then have a look here at 12 mins 40 secs.

Hands up all those (apart from Starbucks, apparently) who want to pay more tax than the law requires?  Hmm, a fairly small number of people I imagine.  And that number is unlikely to include Margaret Hodge herself, whose life has been made just a little easier by being the daughter of a very wealthy businessman who sent her off to private school and, following her inheritance on his death, in whose company she holds (directly and through her children and others) almost 10% of the shares, currently valued at some £20m.  Questions about the tax avoidance strategies of that company have exercised some commentators recently, although the company itself says everything it does is perfectly legal.  I’m quite sure that is true, but in other circumstances that would not stop Hodge from seeking a headline or two.

 

Radio 4 Today programme – an exercise in playground debating tactics

The Today programme has been up to its usual tricks again. Evan Davis interviewing George Osborne last week demonstrated precisely why either he (Davis) should be given a holiday or why politicians generally should be wary of agreeing to be interviewed.

In classic Today style (see Moans 8 and 22), Davis knew all the answers to his ‘questions’ (statements) beforehand because he, of the massive ego, was much brighter than poor old George. So, his task was simply to get George to admit his guilt by answering ‘yes’ or ‘no’ as required – another tactic much used these days (see Moan 17).  Davis kept telling Osborne to answer with either of these, and then talked over Osborne if he didn’t comply.  Osborne tried to reason with him but was rudely rebuked for wasting Davis’s time.

Osborne -“I’m sorry, you can’t just ask these questions and before you even allow me to answer” ….

Davis - “Well, it’s a factual question, you are clearly unable to answer, so let’s move on. Come on, let’s not waste time.”

Memo to Today.  Please stop this pointless and insulting approach to interviewing.  Perhaps just try to imagine the boot being on the other foot and ask yourselves whether you would consider this to be a perfectly reasonable approach or whether you would find it rude and unacceptable – the equivalent of playground behaviour.

 

A clever economist speaks ……

Whilst on the subject of the Today programme, we had the great pleasure of listening to Lord Skidelsky, Emeritus Professor of Political Economy at the University of Warwick and long-standing economic know-all, being interviewed alongside Bridget Rosewell, professional economist and business woman, last week on the subject of the Autumn Statement and the state of the UK economy.  Bridget Rosewell ventured that Lord Skidelsky’s recipe for the economy was based on a false premise because, she said, “the economy is a bit stagnant but it is not in recession”. 

Lord Skidelsky, eminent professor and man of many well-constructed thoughts, responded by saying “The economy is in recession, it has not grown, to any extent, in the last year and a half and if that isn’t …. well, all right, call it semi-recession”.

So, that’s clear.  The noble Lord’s views are based on the UK being in recession, which turns out to be not a recession but a newly-coined economic state of half-recession when confronted by the need to support his assertions.

Makes you look up to the academic profession, doesn’t it?

 

Time to put it out to grass?

I have been a great fan of Have I Got News For You for many years.  I have put up with Ian Hislop’s almost unbearable smugness, particularly when there is a guest he clearly dislikes.  I have put up with the scripted nature of so much of the programme, because it still made me laugh and there was enough apparent spontaneity to make you feel you were watching people thinking on their feet.

This series, however, has limped along rather joylessly.  We have had too may poor episodes to be able to excuse each of them as ‘just one that didn’t work’ (see Moan 19). Far too many awful guest presenters.

Even Paul Merton now appears to have lost his spark.  He has been the key to the programme’s attraction for me, and it is sad to see him struggling to find things to say that make you laugh. He doesn’t seem disiniterested, just lost.   This week’s epsode featured an extraordinarily wooden David Mitchell as guest host – another who suffers when working to a formal script, it seems.  Worst of all, it featured, yet again, Janet Street-Porter. Leaving aside the voice, which ought to have guaranteed that she was never allowed to broadcast in any form whatsoever, the fact is that she is just boring and whatever is the very opposite of funny.  She has been on this programme so many times I have to assume either that she is always available and very cheap, that she has some incriminating evidence stashed away against whoever is in charge of bookings for the programme, or that (surely not?) some kind of warped audience research indicates that people like her.

 

I can hardly believe it, but I can't see the point in watching HIGNFY in future.  It's the end of an era.