The view from the molehill
(with apologies to Alex Glasgow and Chris Mullins)
(While very obviously a layman/foot-soldier's view, this blog looks in a little more detail at issues touched on in the blog, Apprentice! / Tirez les doigts !)
What the Con-Dem government is proposing to inflict in terms of cuts, unemployment and collateral social damage is appalling. (There's a lot of loose talk from the government side about horrendous legacies to future generations in terms of a structural deficit. The legacy in terms of 'the solution' will be far worse. Where I live (Peter Hain's constituency) we still haven't recovered from the 80's and 90's. )
The present 'phoney war' (the talk before the action) is totally surreal, like a slow-motion train crash.
It's not as if the Con-Dem government had a commanding lead, either of public opinion, or of expert analysis and comment. There is in the country a solid phalanx of opinion and expertise (probably not a lot smaller than the ConDem one, in fact) that is coherently objecting to the Coalition programme - an informed, detailed, principled rejection of the programme.
And in practical political terms, Osborne and co only actually have the 'power' to implement their plans courtesy of the Lib Dem parliamentary party - most of whom are probably privately as appalled as those of us on 'this side' (but one can see that they are for the moment left without any good options).
That's for now. When the blitzkrieg actually starts, it seems inevitable the government will lose support as people are actually hurt. We know it's going to be a disaster - the purposeful employment activity of millions lost, the special measures for those already on the margins gone, the welfare costs (even with the benefit cuts) outweighing the intended financial savings, so the whole thing is self-defeating.
Now, consider more fully the issues around mandate, legitimacy and 'moral authority'.
The measures proposed are far from routine - the superlative comparisons vary, but it is clear that in terms of scale of effect and degree of change of direction (i.e. from one government to the next), you have to go back at least to Thatcher. And even that is not really adequate to the Con-Dem aspiration. It is often remarked how unsuccessful the Thatcher governments were in rolling back the state, despite the social and economic damage they did by trying, so even the Thatcher comparison is inadequate. For scale of change you probably have to go back to 1945, (but then there was an exceptional, overwhelming, mandate to 'authorise' it). For a truer comparison you may have to go back to the Geddes' axe - and anyone old enough to have voted for the first time at that preceding election would now be well over 100 years old! So it seems reasonable to claim that to underwrite the government 'morally' today, a wholly exceptional mandate is required .
Whereas, consider the actual electoral facts: in May, Labour won clear-to-overwhelming majorities of MPs from both Wales and Scotland, and the results from England were very regional - there are parts of England where the Governmment has hardly more of a localised mandate than it does in Wales and Scotland. In the present parliament, Labour is the only party with really significant representation from all three mainland elements of the Union.
Moreover, the Government proposals as they now stand include important elements which during the election campaign the Conservatives themselves denied they were considering (the VAT increase being the clearest example) and which the Liberal Democrates explicitly opposed. So within the total package there is a bundle of measures for which the Government cannot claim an electoral mandate in any terms whatever.
And as already noted re the parliamentary mechanics of power: the implementation of this multi-decade-exceptional programme is made possible by the votes of the Lib Dems who secured election by opposing significant parts of it, and many of whom (one must now in charity believe) are probably now as aghast as the rest of us. (If, as a side-outcome, 'our' opposition strategies offered at least some of them something to leap for and cling on to, we should be forbearing. We've made ministers of renegade Tories before now.)
Is this not one of those - once-in-several-generations - moments when 'business as usual' is no longer an option ? If the Labour Party, and particularly its MPs, simply settle down to 'principled opposition' until the next election, the axe will swing, millions of lives will be devastated and swathes of the country will economically marginalised.
Do not these considerations make it reasonable for those of us appalled at what we are threatened with to extend our challenge and opposition well beyond conventional Parliamentary opposition politics?
I ask in all seriousness: should we not be considering a complete social mobilisation of protest, to drive this government from power before it is too late ?
This comment is not a full manifesto - it does not examine what an alternative government would do. ( How could I ? But Apprentice! / Tirez les doigts ! already suggests the way to an answer.) Piecemeal resistance to the cuts by the Unions is predictable but likely to be ineffective and perhaps even unpopular. Whereas a co-ordinated campaign of social resistance including strikes, minimal or non-cooperation with the implementation of cuts by elected councillors and civil servants, sustained widespread demonstrations, could be very powerful. The cuts in the presently proposed Con-Dem version could be stopped.
Are we prepared to try, or is wringing our hands more comfortable ?
Sunday, 4 July 2010
All in this together ?
If only......
Try this thought experiment:
try to put a figure on the lowest income on which anyone (not you, of course, not you) can get by in this country.
Well, of course, 'it depends' - how old 'they' are, whether 'they' have dependants, etc.
But you can be sure of this: surviving at that level is a short-term business, week by week or even day by day. It requires fierce prioritising of spending, probably principally towards shelter, sustenance, and a dash of the vice of choice to soften the edge.
And in what 'they' do buy, 'they' will have very little choice as far as quality goes. There will be many things 'they' will seldom if ever be able to afford at all - new clothes, investment in hobbies or interests, holidays, or indeed travel, away from 'home'.
What infrastructure 'they' have will vary, according to how long 'they' have been at this level, but any failure in the infrastructure will be a major crisis, because there simply is not the financial slack to cope - the pair of shoes no longer wearable, the old washing machine throwing a fault, whatever, is a disaster.
OK. Now double that 'get by' basic figure.
You will still be contemplating an income that most people will consider modest - probably less than the average income, whatever that abused term means.
But obviously the desperate edge is already much abated. Many people at this level will have 'a proper home'. The scope for budgetting is significantly greater. It's at least beginning to be the case that 'they' do not absolutely have to go without anything they regard as essential, although the range of quality they can afford is still restricted.
Double the figure again. And you're now well into basic comfort. You may now be able to afford a property of your own; and your fate, and that of your family, is fairly securely in your own hands provided you stay in work. You have a lot of choice about most things.
But note that at this third level, four times the 'get by' basic, you are still well in the middle of whatever range covers 90% of the whole population. In a typical local authority, for instance, the chief executive may well have a gross salary of ten times the 'get by' basic. And we have probably yet to consider anyone who really regards themselves as 'rich'.
Now let's consider 'cuts'.
For someone on the 'get by' basic, there is virtually no room for manoeuvre. Each £1 they lose is likely to mean there is one more thing that they can't afford at all, and the more pounds they lose, the more certain that is to be the case.
But as you again move in imagination through the income levels, contemplating reduced incomes at every level, choices appear - options to economise, trade down rather than go without, at worst postpone rather than abandon hope of. At quite modest income levels, the sharp absolute of 'we can't have it at all' is no longer there, at least in relation to what 'we' are used to having. And well within the total (i.e. ten times 'get by' basic) range, the difference which reducing a person/household's income by, say, the amount of the 'get by' basic will make becomes a matter of detail and inflection, no more - fewer 'designer' items but no actual material deprivation.
If we were really 'all in this together', the austerity measures would require a very sharp reverse taper, from taking nothing at all from those at the bottom, to whatever is necessary from those at the top.
Perversely, what is actually proposed cuts most directly and specifically at the very bottom - restrictions to Housing Benefit, real-terms cuts to benefits and tax credits, junking thousands of low-skill jobs in the public sector (no one's idea of the good life, but the means by which many just about keep body and soul together).
If there were truly a will that we should be 'all in this together', is there any way to make it so, except by tax ? The truth is, that however much you increase the tax take from the top, they will still have enough to do what they regard as essential - which is already not the case for those at the bottom. And with the revised tax take, you would suddenly find you had bought time to make all the adjustments and re-balancings we really need in a controlled and therefore more efficient way.
I am not an economist nor in any formal sense a money man, though I do have some private experience with investments. I am just a man in his seventh decade who has always concerned himself with the life of his time, and has himself known (relatively) both poverty and plenty.
From that standpoint, I do not 'buy' the assessment of the seriousness of the deficit issue pushed by the Conservatives, and more specifically I entirely reject the facile assumption that public finances are to be run on the same lines as a private domestic budget. Even the relatively more moderate stance of the Labour Party on the issue (still typically New Labour in this) seems to me too concerned to placate the opinions of its natural opponents, not to say enemies.
This is not such a maverick position as some may think - if that includes you, please go away and read e.g. William Keegan and Will Hutton.
So I think current policy is being sold (it may not actually be conceived - that is the devil of it) on a bogus prospectus. Conversely, I believe that the conduct of public policy requires a small screwdriver and a probe, not a sledgehammer (adjustment and re-balancing as between public and private, service and production are constantly required, but sudden exaggerated actions are inherently destabilising and wasteful); and that mass un-employment and inadequate 'welfare' are a far greater danger to the stability and well-being of our society than 'the deficit'. And I certainly think to balance adjusting action in the ratio 4:1 (cuts:taxes) is calculated to make the worst of a bad job. To keep as many lives as possible safe and stable is one of the highest common goods. If we are indeed 'all in this together' ( a fine slogan currently cynically deployed) it is actually in the interests of those least affected to pay more to cushion those most disadvantaged.
Try this thought experiment:
try to put a figure on the lowest income on which anyone (not you, of course, not you) can get by in this country.
Well, of course, 'it depends' - how old 'they' are, whether 'they' have dependants, etc.
But you can be sure of this: surviving at that level is a short-term business, week by week or even day by day. It requires fierce prioritising of spending, probably principally towards shelter, sustenance, and a dash of the vice of choice to soften the edge.
And in what 'they' do buy, 'they' will have very little choice as far as quality goes. There will be many things 'they' will seldom if ever be able to afford at all - new clothes, investment in hobbies or interests, holidays, or indeed travel, away from 'home'.
What infrastructure 'they' have will vary, according to how long 'they' have been at this level, but any failure in the infrastructure will be a major crisis, because there simply is not the financial slack to cope - the pair of shoes no longer wearable, the old washing machine throwing a fault, whatever, is a disaster.
OK. Now double that 'get by' basic figure.
You will still be contemplating an income that most people will consider modest - probably less than the average income, whatever that abused term means.
But obviously the desperate edge is already much abated. Many people at this level will have 'a proper home'. The scope for budgetting is significantly greater. It's at least beginning to be the case that 'they' do not absolutely have to go without anything they regard as essential, although the range of quality they can afford is still restricted.
Double the figure again. And you're now well into basic comfort. You may now be able to afford a property of your own; and your fate, and that of your family, is fairly securely in your own hands provided you stay in work. You have a lot of choice about most things.
But note that at this third level, four times the 'get by' basic, you are still well in the middle of whatever range covers 90% of the whole population. In a typical local authority, for instance, the chief executive may well have a gross salary of ten times the 'get by' basic. And we have probably yet to consider anyone who really regards themselves as 'rich'.
Now let's consider 'cuts'.
For someone on the 'get by' basic, there is virtually no room for manoeuvre. Each £1 they lose is likely to mean there is one more thing that they can't afford at all, and the more pounds they lose, the more certain that is to be the case.
But as you again move in imagination through the income levels, contemplating reduced incomes at every level, choices appear - options to economise, trade down rather than go without, at worst postpone rather than abandon hope of. At quite modest income levels, the sharp absolute of 'we can't have it at all' is no longer there, at least in relation to what 'we' are used to having. And well within the total (i.e. ten times 'get by' basic) range, the difference which reducing a person/household's income by, say, the amount of the 'get by' basic will make becomes a matter of detail and inflection, no more - fewer 'designer' items but no actual material deprivation.
If we were really 'all in this together', the austerity measures would require a very sharp reverse taper, from taking nothing at all from those at the bottom, to whatever is necessary from those at the top.
Perversely, what is actually proposed cuts most directly and specifically at the very bottom - restrictions to Housing Benefit, real-terms cuts to benefits and tax credits, junking thousands of low-skill jobs in the public sector (no one's idea of the good life, but the means by which many just about keep body and soul together).
If there were truly a will that we should be 'all in this together', is there any way to make it so, except by tax ? The truth is, that however much you increase the tax take from the top, they will still have enough to do what they regard as essential - which is already not the case for those at the bottom. And with the revised tax take, you would suddenly find you had bought time to make all the adjustments and re-balancings we really need in a controlled and therefore more efficient way.
I am not an economist nor in any formal sense a money man, though I do have some private experience with investments. I am just a man in his seventh decade who has always concerned himself with the life of his time, and has himself known (relatively) both poverty and plenty.
From that standpoint, I do not 'buy' the assessment of the seriousness of the deficit issue pushed by the Conservatives, and more specifically I entirely reject the facile assumption that public finances are to be run on the same lines as a private domestic budget. Even the relatively more moderate stance of the Labour Party on the issue (still typically New Labour in this) seems to me too concerned to placate the opinions of its natural opponents, not to say enemies.
This is not such a maverick position as some may think - if that includes you, please go away and read e.g. William Keegan and Will Hutton.
So I think current policy is being sold (it may not actually be conceived - that is the devil of it) on a bogus prospectus. Conversely, I believe that the conduct of public policy requires a small screwdriver and a probe, not a sledgehammer (adjustment and re-balancing as between public and private, service and production are constantly required, but sudden exaggerated actions are inherently destabilising and wasteful); and that mass un-employment and inadequate 'welfare' are a far greater danger to the stability and well-being of our society than 'the deficit'. And I certainly think to balance adjusting action in the ratio 4:1 (cuts:taxes) is calculated to make the worst of a bad job. To keep as many lives as possible safe and stable is one of the highest common goods. If we are indeed 'all in this together' ( a fine slogan currently cynically deployed) it is actually in the interests of those least affected to pay more to cushion those most disadvantaged.
Saturday, 3 July 2010
Vindicated in defeat.........
.............an exemplum of poignancy
So the Con Dem government (what we used to call the Tories) are going to cut the Police.
(Can you believe that ? The Tories cutting the pollice ? It must be new politics after all.)
Cut in memory to clip from, was it the second leader's debate ?
Gordon Brown insisting "We will sustain police spending " and repeatedly pressing Cameron on the point ?
A prophet without honour in his country.
So the Con Dem government (what we used to call the Tories) are going to cut the Police.
(Can you believe that ? The Tories cutting the pollice ? It must be new politics after all.)
Cut in memory to clip from, was it the second leader's debate ?
Gordon Brown insisting "We will sustain police spending " and repeatedly pressing Cameron on the point ?
A prophet without honour in his country.
Sunday, 16 May 2010
Reasons to be cheerful......
An unashamedly partisan assessment of the 2010 election result
They're all at it. In various phrasings, members of the shadow cabinet are telling us:
"we lost the election and it was a bad result..........this is the second worst result for us since universal suffrage".
It's a kind of PC reaction, a form of sackcloth and ashes and tearing your hair.
And I'm not, I hope, complacent or blindly optimistic. Of course there are sins to repent, mistakes to learn from, a whole strategic revaluation to be done.
But let's get some context.
When was the last time a government was elected for a fourth consecutive term?
How many examples do you have at your finger-tips ?
Can you give me a single example of a consecutive fourth term that was both deserved and successful ?
Reflect on 1992 for a moment in silence........Was the victory good for the Conservatives, or for the country ? (And on the other hand, do you wish Labour had won, as we prematurely convinced ourselves we had ? ) There are elections like that.
So, OK, this year the contingent case for Labour's re-election was actually quite strong, in terms of how the deficit should be handled, and the most vulnerable protected. But really we had long destroyed any wider claim to re-election. And in that process, I would identify the three key factors as Iraq (still); the loss of nerve in 2007; and the sheer political incompetence of the Cabinet and Parliamentary party re the leadership. These were not simply actual decisions with practical consequences. They were also markers of a mind-set, they were graphics of a moral deficit.
The in and out of office is conventionally imaged by the swing of the pendulum. I would suggest there is about it also something of the seasons and the annual cycle. I am aware in myself, post-election, of a new spring in my step, a renewed commitment. And it seems I am not the only one. 13,000 people are reported to have joined or rejoined Labour since May 6th. I have joined the Fabians (something I probably should have done long ago!) and they also report a surge. I think these are straws in the wind which speak to the fact that this was not a catastrophic defeat which leaves us licking our wounds and wondering whether to quit the field and hang up our weapons. For so long, many of us have been clinging on by sheer loyalty, with gritted teeth. Now we can move forward again with hope. It is our opponents who will be accumulating enemies in this new phase.
I think there are (you guessed it) a good many reasons to be cheerful, to go energetically and hopefully into the post-mortems and leadership election and systemic re-building.
To come out of office after three terms with 258 MPs seems to me a very solid base from which to go forward.
We are now the only party with a significant presence in all the three principal parts of the Union. (It does annoy me when the media, in their 'treat politics as sport' way, describe it as 'a good night for the Tories in Wales', when they have, gosh, 8 seats out of 40).
We have seen off Respect, retaken Blaenau Gwent and given the BNP a bloody nose.
We hold Rochdale!
And we still have a young but seasoned front bench. If David Cameron were hit by a bus, who else might lead the Tories? Whereas we have a really quite appetising election in prospect.
And not least, the English council results suggest that we are already past the bottom in that arena. I'm inclined to take that as a metaphor for the whole result - we stared a meltdown in the face, and fought back with some success.
There may even be a potential long-term dividend in that when we get back into office, we shall probably take over a higher tax regime than we left.
The new Government is overwhelmingly several things that may ultimately turn out to be to its disadvantage - rich, white, male, privileged. And English - even southern English. The Midlothian Question is suddenly upside down. There have already been some interesting comments online on the implications of this. Is it possible that this actually opens up an opportunity for Labour ? If we could develop, in a very measured way (i.e. as just one policy in our portfolio, and probably one that would require two Parliaments to see it to fruition) a model for English devolution, it would provide a way of giving England Tory government in devolved matters, if that's what they want, without shackling the rest of us. This is a sort of Disraeli-ish possibility, in that in one sense it ought to be a Tory option, but we could steal their clothes and help our heartlands, and possibly win English votes into the bargain.
They're all at it. In various phrasings, members of the shadow cabinet are telling us:
"we lost the election and it was a bad result..........this is the second worst result for us since universal suffrage".
It's a kind of PC reaction, a form of sackcloth and ashes and tearing your hair.
And I'm not, I hope, complacent or blindly optimistic. Of course there are sins to repent, mistakes to learn from, a whole strategic revaluation to be done.
But let's get some context.
When was the last time a government was elected for a fourth consecutive term?
How many examples do you have at your finger-tips ?
Can you give me a single example of a consecutive fourth term that was both deserved and successful ?
Reflect on 1992 for a moment in silence........Was the victory good for the Conservatives, or for the country ? (And on the other hand, do you wish Labour had won, as we prematurely convinced ourselves we had ? ) There are elections like that.
So, OK, this year the contingent case for Labour's re-election was actually quite strong, in terms of how the deficit should be handled, and the most vulnerable protected. But really we had long destroyed any wider claim to re-election. And in that process, I would identify the three key factors as Iraq (still); the loss of nerve in 2007; and the sheer political incompetence of the Cabinet and Parliamentary party re the leadership. These were not simply actual decisions with practical consequences. They were also markers of a mind-set, they were graphics of a moral deficit.
The in and out of office is conventionally imaged by the swing of the pendulum. I would suggest there is about it also something of the seasons and the annual cycle. I am aware in myself, post-election, of a new spring in my step, a renewed commitment. And it seems I am not the only one. 13,000 people are reported to have joined or rejoined Labour since May 6th. I have joined the Fabians (something I probably should have done long ago!) and they also report a surge. I think these are straws in the wind which speak to the fact that this was not a catastrophic defeat which leaves us licking our wounds and wondering whether to quit the field and hang up our weapons. For so long, many of us have been clinging on by sheer loyalty, with gritted teeth. Now we can move forward again with hope. It is our opponents who will be accumulating enemies in this new phase.
I think there are (you guessed it) a good many reasons to be cheerful, to go energetically and hopefully into the post-mortems and leadership election and systemic re-building.
To come out of office after three terms with 258 MPs seems to me a very solid base from which to go forward.
We are now the only party with a significant presence in all the three principal parts of the Union. (It does annoy me when the media, in their 'treat politics as sport' way, describe it as 'a good night for the Tories in Wales', when they have, gosh, 8 seats out of 40).
We have seen off Respect, retaken Blaenau Gwent and given the BNP a bloody nose.
We hold Rochdale!
And we still have a young but seasoned front bench. If David Cameron were hit by a bus, who else might lead the Tories? Whereas we have a really quite appetising election in prospect.
And not least, the English council results suggest that we are already past the bottom in that arena. I'm inclined to take that as a metaphor for the whole result - we stared a meltdown in the face, and fought back with some success.
There may even be a potential long-term dividend in that when we get back into office, we shall probably take over a higher tax regime than we left.
The new Government is overwhelmingly several things that may ultimately turn out to be to its disadvantage - rich, white, male, privileged. And English - even southern English. The Midlothian Question is suddenly upside down. There have already been some interesting comments online on the implications of this. Is it possible that this actually opens up an opportunity for Labour ? If we could develop, in a very measured way (i.e. as just one policy in our portfolio, and probably one that would require two Parliaments to see it to fruition) a model for English devolution, it would provide a way of giving England Tory government in devolved matters, if that's what they want, without shackling the rest of us. This is a sort of Disraeli-ish possibility, in that in one sense it ought to be a Tory option, but we could steal their clothes and help our heartlands, and possibly win English votes into the bargain.
Saturday, 30 January 2010
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation ?
This is a cautionary tale - one of those sequences of events that veer off the expected track, and produce a trail of further nasty surprises on down the line.
In August 2009, I received an e-mail flier from a company called Warehouse Direct with some special offers on powertools. One was an electric saw with two interchangeable positions for different cuts, and I ordered one of these as a gift for my brother-in-law. It arrived about a week later, and I gave it to him.
Early in October, he told me that the catch which controlled the two settings had broken. I emailed Warehouse Direct, and passed the invoice to my brother-in-law.
He phoned the company, and got absolutely 'no change' out of them. 'Matter of wear and tear,' they said. But as it happened they did have the replacement part in stock and would sell him one for £27. Plus £8 carriage. This for a small plastic gubbins. We surmised that ours was not the first to fail, and that the company were organised to profit from a fault in the tool's basic specification.
OK, I said, I'll write to them, and involve my credit card.
This was where I began to get premonitions that all was not going to turn out well. The price of the tool had been £99.95, with 'free carriage'. In other words, just 5 pence below the threshold at which the credit card company would have shared liability for the goods.
But I wrote to the company. I formally requested them to arrange for the collection of the saw for inspection, and repair or replacement. It was at this stage that I realised for the first time exactly where they were - in Aberdeenshire, Scotland.
Putting all the facts together, the picture that had emerged was of a company who were very deliberately sailing very close to the wind. So I wrote to their local Trading Standards department.
I heard nothing from the company. Someone from Trading Standards rang me, however. He said the company weren't obliged to recover or inspect the goods. And he advised me to contact my own local Trading Standards.
In all, I contacted the company five times over a period of seven weeks, variously by letter, by email and by feedback from their website. I got an automatic acknowledgement from the last, promising a further reply, which never came, and no other response whatever.
On the face of it, under UK consumer law, the company had not a leg to stand on. The saw was unfit for purpose in the full legal sense. (See the end of this article for an indication of the line I was taking with them).
I considered court action. But the distance and the different legal dispensations bothered me. And so did the facts that the company was so resolutely brazen in ignoring me, and that I sensed an unspoken something, a lack of full endorsement, in the conversation with Trading Standards. Furthermore, legal action would not fix or replace the saw on any quick timetable.
My b-i-l and I talked it over, and decided we could probably fettle the saw between us, which would, obviously, kill any claim we had. But we were beginning to smart. Why should 'they' get away with it ?
The company was behaving like caricature grasping Scots. Surely some Scots would be interested and appalled, even if they could do nothing to alter the facts of the deal?
I went online again, and looked up who was the MSP for the relevant postcode. And at last, I thought I had a result. For it was none other than Alex Salmond, First Minister and Leader of the SNP. His brave new Scotland, Scotland in Europe, surely would not like the face Scotland was showing us ? He might at least drop some acerbic words in the right ear ( Richard Harries' ear ?) at some civic bun-fight ?
So in mid-December I wrote to Alex Salmond and again to Aberdeenshire Trading Standards, in both cases setting out the facts while making it absolutely clear that I was not seeking actual "advice or assistance re order #5162 from Warehouse Direct. I regard that matter as closed – not satisfactorily, but closed nonetheless. "
I wrote to Alex Salmond at his constituency office. Almost by return, my letter came back to me. Since I am not actually a constituent, Mr Salmond was proscribed from responding to me. But if I wished, I could contact him in his other role as First Minister of Scotland. So I did.
Trading Standards replied to me on January 12th and Alex Salmond's office again on January 14th.
Trading Standards expressed themselves as disappointed that I had had no response to my multiple representations to Warehouse Direct, but
"Unfortunately, customer service is not an area that we could have any influence over, but I have noted your comments and details of your complaint ad will keep them on file for future reference"
Which leaves me somewhat bemused as to exactly what Trading Standards are for ? They do not give consumer advice. Nor do they police the conduct of business on their patch. So what do they do ?
Mr Salmond did not reply (not even pretending over an automated signature). The letter was from his office manager. (And I note that though the second time I had written to the Office of the First Minister, the second reply again came from his constituency office, who had said that they couldn't deal with the matter, and advised that I should write to him as First Minister. )
The letter was, frankly, slightly incoherent. It was not clear whether it was actually responding to the facts I had presented, or asking if I would like them to be put before Mr. Salmond. There was an email address on the letterhead, and I emailed for clarification.
Still the gyre continued - this was the reply:
"Dear Mr Graham,
I refer to your email below and apologise if the letter was not clear.
The point I was making was that I was happy to bring this to Mr Salmond's attention, as the company to which you refer is in his constituency. However from what I understood in your letter you were only looking for this to be passed to Mr Salmond for information, which has now been done.
Should you have wanted him to represent your views, or take up a case on your behalf that should have been stated in your letter. However even if you did want Mr Salmond to do this parliamentary protocol prevents him from representing anyone outwith his constituency. Should you want individual representation that would be a matter for your own MP.
Even if Mr Salmond were to take the issue up if you were a constituent he would be taking the matter up with the same person you already appear to have written to.
Certainly if the response you receive from Trading Standards is dissatisfying and you feel there is further recourse for Mr Salmond in general terms, I would be happy to see the response you receive and assess what, if anything, he could do.
I hope this clarifies matters.
Kind regards,
Hannah Bardell"
Which again, is less than sparklingly coherent, but amounts, I think, to "Please go away. Mr. Salmond is not interested ." Certainly, I have neard nothing more.
It was Virgil, long ago, who first penned the comment about being wary of Greeks bearing gifts. A current version might be: "Scots traders offering a bargain ? Caveat emptor !" But no-one in 'the Athens of the north' seems to care.
Finally, the following are extracted from my several letters/emails to the company:
“I contend that the breakage in the saw demonstrates that the saw was not "of ‘Satisfactory quality’" in that it did not "reach the standard a reasonable person would expect taking into account the price and any description," and specifically that it was not "durable, safe and fit for all the purposes for which such goods are commonly supplied."
(Quotations from http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/after_you_buy/know-your- rights/SGAknowyourrights/)
I also draw to your attention the following, from your own Terms and Conditions:
"If goods sent are defective , not as advertised , or not fit for purpose - Warehouse Direct will arrange uplift or replacement of these items at no cost to the customer. "
You have been requested to do this, and you have neither done so, nor responded to the request in any other way.
Accordingly, I now request a full refund of the original purchase price. You are, of course, entirely at liberty to recover the goods at your own expense. “
In August 2009, I received an e-mail flier from a company called Warehouse Direct with some special offers on powertools. One was an electric saw with two interchangeable positions for different cuts, and I ordered one of these as a gift for my brother-in-law. It arrived about a week later, and I gave it to him.
Early in October, he told me that the catch which controlled the two settings had broken. I emailed Warehouse Direct, and passed the invoice to my brother-in-law.
He phoned the company, and got absolutely 'no change' out of them. 'Matter of wear and tear,' they said. But as it happened they did have the replacement part in stock and would sell him one for £27. Plus £8 carriage. This for a small plastic gubbins. We surmised that ours was not the first to fail, and that the company were organised to profit from a fault in the tool's basic specification.
OK, I said, I'll write to them, and involve my credit card.
This was where I began to get premonitions that all was not going to turn out well. The price of the tool had been £99.95, with 'free carriage'. In other words, just 5 pence below the threshold at which the credit card company would have shared liability for the goods.
But I wrote to the company. I formally requested them to arrange for the collection of the saw for inspection, and repair or replacement. It was at this stage that I realised for the first time exactly where they were - in Aberdeenshire, Scotland.
Putting all the facts together, the picture that had emerged was of a company who were very deliberately sailing very close to the wind. So I wrote to their local Trading Standards department.
I heard nothing from the company. Someone from Trading Standards rang me, however. He said the company weren't obliged to recover or inspect the goods. And he advised me to contact my own local Trading Standards.
In all, I contacted the company five times over a period of seven weeks, variously by letter, by email and by feedback from their website. I got an automatic acknowledgement from the last, promising a further reply, which never came, and no other response whatever.
On the face of it, under UK consumer law, the company had not a leg to stand on. The saw was unfit for purpose in the full legal sense. (See the end of this article for an indication of the line I was taking with them).
I considered court action. But the distance and the different legal dispensations bothered me. And so did the facts that the company was so resolutely brazen in ignoring me, and that I sensed an unspoken something, a lack of full endorsement, in the conversation with Trading Standards. Furthermore, legal action would not fix or replace the saw on any quick timetable.
My b-i-l and I talked it over, and decided we could probably fettle the saw between us, which would, obviously, kill any claim we had. But we were beginning to smart. Why should 'they' get away with it ?
The company was behaving like caricature grasping Scots. Surely some Scots would be interested and appalled, even if they could do nothing to alter the facts of the deal?
I went online again, and looked up who was the MSP for the relevant postcode. And at last, I thought I had a result. For it was none other than Alex Salmond, First Minister and Leader of the SNP. His brave new Scotland, Scotland in Europe, surely would not like the face Scotland was showing us ? He might at least drop some acerbic words in the right ear ( Richard Harries' ear ?) at some civic bun-fight ?
So in mid-December I wrote to Alex Salmond and again to Aberdeenshire Trading Standards, in both cases setting out the facts while making it absolutely clear that I was not seeking actual "advice or assistance re order #5162 from Warehouse Direct. I regard that matter as closed – not satisfactorily, but closed nonetheless. "
I wrote to Alex Salmond at his constituency office. Almost by return, my letter came back to me. Since I am not actually a constituent, Mr Salmond was proscribed from responding to me. But if I wished, I could contact him in his other role as First Minister of Scotland. So I did.
Trading Standards replied to me on January 12th and Alex Salmond's office again on January 14th.
Trading Standards expressed themselves as disappointed that I had had no response to my multiple representations to Warehouse Direct, but
"Unfortunately, customer service is not an area that we could have any influence over, but I have noted your comments and details of your complaint ad will keep them on file for future reference"
Which leaves me somewhat bemused as to exactly what Trading Standards are for ? They do not give consumer advice. Nor do they police the conduct of business on their patch. So what do they do ?
Mr Salmond did not reply (not even pretending over an automated signature). The letter was from his office manager. (And I note that though the second time I had written to the Office of the First Minister, the second reply again came from his constituency office, who had said that they couldn't deal with the matter, and advised that I should write to him as First Minister. )
The letter was, frankly, slightly incoherent. It was not clear whether it was actually responding to the facts I had presented, or asking if I would like them to be put before Mr. Salmond. There was an email address on the letterhead, and I emailed for clarification.
Still the gyre continued - this was the reply:
"Dear Mr Graham,
I refer to your email below and apologise if the letter was not clear.
The point I was making was that I was happy to bring this to Mr Salmond's attention, as the company to which you refer is in his constituency. However from what I understood in your letter you were only looking for this to be passed to Mr Salmond for information, which has now been done.
Should you have wanted him to represent your views, or take up a case on your behalf that should have been stated in your letter. However even if you did want Mr Salmond to do this parliamentary protocol prevents him from representing anyone outwith his constituency. Should you want individual representation that would be a matter for your own MP.
Even if Mr Salmond were to take the issue up if you were a constituent he would be taking the matter up with the same person you already appear to have written to.
Certainly if the response you receive from Trading Standards is dissatisfying and you feel there is further recourse for Mr Salmond in general terms, I would be happy to see the response you receive and assess what, if anything, he could do.
I hope this clarifies matters.
Kind regards,
Hannah Bardell"
Which again, is less than sparklingly coherent, but amounts, I think, to "Please go away. Mr. Salmond is not interested ." Certainly, I have neard nothing more.
It was Virgil, long ago, who first penned the comment about being wary of Greeks bearing gifts. A current version might be: "Scots traders offering a bargain ? Caveat emptor !" But no-one in 'the Athens of the north' seems to care.
Finally, the following are extracted from my several letters/emails to the company:
“I contend that the breakage in the saw demonstrates that the saw was not "of ‘Satisfactory quality’" in that it did not "reach the standard a reasonable person would expect taking into account the price and any description," and specifically that it was not "durable, safe and fit for all the purposes for which such goods are commonly supplied."
(Quotations from http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/after_you_buy/know-your- rights/SGAknowyourrights/)
I also draw to your attention the following, from your own Terms and Conditions:
"If goods sent are defective , not as advertised , or not fit for purpose - Warehouse Direct will arrange uplift or replacement of these items at no cost to the customer. "
You have been requested to do this, and you have neither done so, nor responded to the request in any other way.
Accordingly, I now request a full refund of the original purchase price. You are, of course, entirely at liberty to recover the goods at your own expense. “
Sunday, 7 December 2008
December again
Time for an end-of-year update, for all of you hurrying here, having seen the URL in your Christmas card.....
The sad truth is that the second half of 2008 has been in some ways a rather testing and frustrating period.
We had set ourselves the objective of getting a roof on no 6 by the onset of this winter (which implied also some masonry work on the shell, and a working first floor). But once I got back into working harness after Bruges, we probably, literally, never had more than 2 consecutive fine days right through into September.
The disappointment of our hopes in this respect was also in part contributed to by an extraordinary series of events involving our (and Mum's) neighbour who lives immediately above no. 6. At the end of July ( it was pretty much datable) there was a marked change in his behaviour, yes, towards us, but also towards the whole locality. Things were at their most difficult in late August and early September ( I felt I needed to sleep in Mum's house each night for a period of around three weeks ) until he was eventually taken off to hospital, where he remains.
Just as that was all passing astern, Nina's 1st-cousin-once-removed Barbara (sister of Nina's godfather, who since his death describes herself as Nina's godmother) had a minor stroke, and has spent most of the autumn in a residential home. Nina has been much up and down to Gosport, putting together an infrastructure of care and modifications to Barbara's house which last week enabled Barbara to go home.
However, there have been some bright spots, too.
Emily, Ben. Leo and Angharad (and Bonzo) came home from Australia early in October. They are now back in their old home in Guildford, and Ben is working for Microsoft. We've both spent time down there, me 'building' and Nina 'being Granny', and we're looking forward to seeing a lot more of them, and of Jenny and Alex, at some stage over the year-end holiday.
At half-term, Lesley and David were down here in Wales, and viewed a house in Godre 'r' graig, just about within walking distance of Clees Lane, and finally came out best in a fairly extended 'auction'. The transition from Linton seems likely to be a matter of years rather than months, but hopefully will start soon.
So, are we down-hearted ? Well, not for long. My reaction to such pressures is often to find a way of striking off in a new direction, and this time it has taken the form of finding myself a music teacher to help me develop aspects of my keyboard playing - improve memory- and by-ear- work, and improvisation, both in terms of baroque figured bass, and jazz. Early days yet, but very exciting so far. Nina is fairly forbearing.......
I close by repeating our urgings / invitation of a year ago - see Cymru am bydd (below) ! A few of you have been..........We must surely be due for a good summer next year ? (!) But you don't have to wait that long - just phone or email us any time.
P.S. The snooker table has become a crucial element of our domesticity. There has been barely a day all year ( when we have both been here ) when we haven't had at least one frame. We have improved quite markedly - we even have 'breaks' now !
The sad truth is that the second half of 2008 has been in some ways a rather testing and frustrating period.
We had set ourselves the objective of getting a roof on no 6 by the onset of this winter (which implied also some masonry work on the shell, and a working first floor). But once I got back into working harness after Bruges, we probably, literally, never had more than 2 consecutive fine days right through into September.
The disappointment of our hopes in this respect was also in part contributed to by an extraordinary series of events involving our (and Mum's) neighbour who lives immediately above no. 6. At the end of July ( it was pretty much datable) there was a marked change in his behaviour, yes, towards us, but also towards the whole locality. Things were at their most difficult in late August and early September ( I felt I needed to sleep in Mum's house each night for a period of around three weeks ) until he was eventually taken off to hospital, where he remains.
Just as that was all passing astern, Nina's 1st-cousin-once-removed Barbara (sister of Nina's godfather, who since his death describes herself as Nina's godmother) had a minor stroke, and has spent most of the autumn in a residential home. Nina has been much up and down to Gosport, putting together an infrastructure of care and modifications to Barbara's house which last week enabled Barbara to go home.
However, there have been some bright spots, too.
Emily, Ben. Leo and Angharad (and Bonzo) came home from Australia early in October. They are now back in their old home in Guildford, and Ben is working for Microsoft. We've both spent time down there, me 'building' and Nina 'being Granny', and we're looking forward to seeing a lot more of them, and of Jenny and Alex, at some stage over the year-end holiday.
At half-term, Lesley and David were down here in Wales, and viewed a house in Godre 'r' graig, just about within walking distance of Clees Lane, and finally came out best in a fairly extended 'auction'. The transition from Linton seems likely to be a matter of years rather than months, but hopefully will start soon.
So, are we down-hearted ? Well, not for long. My reaction to such pressures is often to find a way of striking off in a new direction, and this time it has taken the form of finding myself a music teacher to help me develop aspects of my keyboard playing - improve memory- and by-ear- work, and improvisation, both in terms of baroque figured bass, and jazz. Early days yet, but very exciting so far. Nina is fairly forbearing.......
I close by repeating our urgings / invitation of a year ago - see Cymru am bydd (below) ! A few of you have been..........We must surely be due for a good summer next year ? (!) But you don't have to wait that long - just phone or email us any time.
P.S. The snooker table has become a crucial element of our domesticity. There has been barely a day all year ( when we have both been here ) when we haven't had at least one frame. We have improved quite markedly - we even have 'breaks' now !
Sunday, 13 July 2008
Bruges - then and now
Jenny and I had five nights in Bruges, 30th June - 4th July. The main reason for our visit, of course, was Jenny's interest in Jan Van Eyck and 'early Netherlandish' painting. But there was a second 'research' element of a more private kind.
My (maternal grandmother) Gran's brother, Leslie Haydn Reeve (1891 - 1919) was, like his sister and his parents, a teacher. Family tradition has it that he worked in Belgium before the First World War, and that Gran (not yet married) had a holiday with him in Belgium, in the course of which they visited Bruges. More concretely, we have, pasted in to Auntie Tot's Friendship book, a small water-colour sketch apparently signed by Uncle Leslie, that we have long suspected was of somewhere in Bruges.
We, now we know - it is.The bridge is De Sleutelbrug, at the north end of Speelmansrei. The church is St Jacobskerk. The little chapel at the left of the painting was once the guild chapel of the Bruges Speelmansrei - the professional musicians who in medieval times had the monopoly of playing for weddings etc. in the city. And I would like to acknowledge the kindness of the staff in the Regional Development office on JanVanEyck Plein who put us on the right track.
Finding the place - inevitably - raised new questions. In reality, the church is more distant than the sketch shows it, and in fact, is only visible from the Speelmansrei / Artoisstraat are at certain angles. We couldn't pin down an actual viewpoint corresponding to that implied in Uncle Leslie's sketch. We came away, in fact, uncertain whether there was such a viewpoint, or whether the view as painted might not be a conceived view, a theoretical answer to the questions of view and perspective.
Anyone who's been to Bruges will know that there is a popular 'template' for views of the city - "canal, bridge, distant tower" - which you can find exemplified in postcard after postcard, as well as in paintings old and new. However, we found only one painting which related to this locality and view - De Speelmansrei in Brugge by Albert Baertsoen, (1895), which we were fortunate to catch in the 'Brugge in de verf' exhibition at the Gruuthuse - a big, splendid, vigorous in pasto oil from a viewpoint much farther back along Speelmansrei (and, I suspect, a slightly 'tweaked' perspective). We also found two old photos, probably postcards, in a Tempus 'old photos of Bruge' book - but no modern ones.
The two photos below are: a straight shot of me on de Sleutelbrug; and a pano/stitch based on four radiating shots from the middle of the bridge. (Pano made with Autostitch).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)