I will OWN nicotine abstinence

Long time no blog?
Hmm, too true.

Tomorrow I go for the kill. No more cigarettes. Ever. I will OWN this process. I am in control.

Enough said.

Class, RLD (Again) & Painting

Rant

Those Red Letter Day peeps eventually called me back (1 week late tsk!) to tell me the dates were available for the stop-smoking clinic.

No sooner had I checked, but the first available date was 4th July.

Thanks.

Another 5 weeks.

Life

Going to be away for a week or so, so not sure how much blogging will get done (if any).

Philosophies

Class

Read an interesting article on the Wrinkled Weasel blog the other day which got the old grey matter churning. http://wrinkledweasel.blogspot.com/2009/05/feted-underclass-that-deserves-nothing.html

As with my usual approach to such thinking, I start at the beginning.

An interesting WIKI on the subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class

A direct quote from the WIKI (OK, it is a WIKI so open to interpretation)

"In societies where classes exist, one's class is determined largely by:

• personal or household per capita income or wealth / net worth, including the ownership of land, property, means of production, etc.
• occupation
• education and qualifications
• family background "

And specifically for Britain....
"If viewed as a hierarchy a current model would be as follows (below is only a basic model, as factors such as home, attitudes, clothing, speech, and mannerisms affect the basic assessment of reputation, education and position)

• Upper class: Generally holders of titles of nobility and their relatives, some with substantial inherited wealth. Men will almost always speak with the distinctive accent of the most famous of Britain's schools, such as Eton, Harrow, Winchester: it is practically impossible to join this class after childhood.
• Upper middle class: Generally professionals or businesspeople with both good university degrees and professional qualifications, usually with a public school education. A significant proportion of their wealth is often from inheritance, but with earnings this class has the richest and most successful people
• Middle class: Similar to the upper middle class but usually from a less establishment-based background and education. Generally professionals or businesspeople with a university degree, perhaps from a "new university". Will normally own their own home and earn well above the national average.
• Lower middle class: May not hold a university degree but works in a white collar job and will earn just above the national average.
• Upper working class: Generally does not hold a university degree and works in skilled or well experienced role such as supervisor, foreman, or skilled trade such as plumber, electrician, joiner, tool-maker, train driver.
• Working class: Generally has low educational attainment and works in a semi-skilled or unskilled blue collar occupation, in fields such as industrial or construction work. Some examples would be a drill press operator, car assembler, welding machine operator, lorry driver, fork-lift operator, docker, or production labourer. Disappearing fast due to de-industrialisation and automation.
• Lower working class: Generally works in low/minimum wage occupations, such as cleaner, shop assistant, bar worker. Often eyou must certainly buy into a concept of public and private moralitymployed in the personal service industry.
• Underclass: Reliant on state benefits for income, described by Marx as the lumpenproletariat. "

So why am I quoting WIKI's etc? Bit bl**dy boring?

Well, there was a line in the Weasel's post that caught my eye.

"you must certainly buy into a concept of public and private morality"

Given the start of this blog, rights,wrongs, morals, ethics yadda yadda an interesting subject to think & write about.

I'd like to turn the whole thing on it's head and state that true class is based on morality and nothing more.

My logic for this is quite simple.

You can only truly "get on" in the world if you have a strong moral base (or knowledge of right from wrong, whatever you wish to call it).

I suppose it might be the "good triumphs over evil" lark again.

I'm sure many critics would tear this argument apart, but let me continie my reasoning.....in the morning

I have tried to hold this in but cannot any longer...

Over the past three weeks, I (like most) have seen some of the most immoral and unjustifiable use of the MP's expenses system.

I am trying so hard to keep this blog from turning into a swear fest and focus on what I believe to be important.

However, today my blood has reached boiling point and I need to rant.

My simple rules:

1) MP's should not profit from their use of the expenses system
2) MP's should nto be put to personal financial cost by undertaking MP's duties

OK - nice and simple.

Thus, I have no objection to the ACA being used for a property if the MP is beyond a "reasonable" commuting distance from Westminster. What is reasonable? I'd say about an hour.
If they choose to buy a place and use ACA for mortgage payments - no problem....as long as any capital gain which has been funded by said mortgage is returned to the fees office at the time of sale. NOT just the CGT, ANY capital profit.

I don't mind them furnishing the property to a reasonable level - the limits on the "John Lewis" list sound quite high for some items - £750 for a TV? I just paid £300 for my nice 32" flat screen. I don't need any more so why should they?

One point on the furnishings - they should NOT be allowed to keep taxpayer funded furnishings once they cease to have a second home.
I'm not sure how this would be administered, maybe it would be better if they leased furnishings. Plenty of companies offer this service.
Failing that, they should be allowed to sell it furnished (and pay the capital gain) or they should be able to buy it off the taxpayer.

OK, onto other allowances.

Why do they get a payoff when standing down? I don't get one if I leave employment voluntarily. If they lose the election, then that suggests an assessment of poor performance from the electorate and thus sounds like a "reward for failure".
That should be stopped NOW.

As for the winding down allowance (intended to make their staff redundant, office leases etc); this should be claimed on a per receipt basis up to the maximum. Not just given a sum of money. What about that MP that has his office in his garage?

I don't mind MPs employing family members as long as employment contracts are in place with hours worked etc. If the MP is any good, they will put their staff to good use and therefore stay elected.

So they are my principles.

Now, who is pi$$ing me off beyond belief?

This may surprise some, but my "worst offenders" are the ones who have claimed in the most immoral way. Not based on a sum of money.

We are talking about principles here, the amount is insignificant in that argument.

Property Developers:
Anyone flipping or refurbishing a property for capital gain - included dry rot claims, phantom mortgages/properties,new windows, lavish bathrooms & kitchens - WRONG, WRONG, WRONG

Ridiculous furnishing claims:
£2,500 TV's, Duck Houses, iPods, iPhones all WRONG

Food claims:
£5,000 a year? £7,200 in the case of Ed Balls & Cooper. Why should I pay for your sodding food? WRONG

My personal bug bear with all of this is the sense of entitlement MPs seem to have.

"I haven't come into parliament not to get what is owed to me"
"So and so is doing it so I am too"

And it's not just the MPs.

How can Baroness Uddin moan about the lack of social housing when she is in one herself whilst the taxpayer funds an investment of a flat in maidstone.

They are not all bent of course, but it seems a high percentage (>20%) are.

It needs to stop, and it needs to stop NOW.

F***ing W******s the lot of them.

Still British Gas, Red Letter Days, Football, Politics and Health

Rant

British Gas

They called again on Saturday - apparentlt I'd called them during the week (I hadn't, they called me). I explained that I received a call to tell me the bill was on it's way when the "Customer Experience Consultant" (or whatever they are called these days) informed me he was trying to sort it all out. A long confusing discussion ensued. Ugh, they'll be putting me on their "friends and family" list soon!

Red Letter Days

Still no news - will call later, again at my expense!

Politics - Good old Politics

We need to draw a line under this expenses stuff. I don't mean those who have yet to be caught should be let off, I mean there needs to be a firm rule as to what the punishments are. These should be applied to those who have been exposed, and those who are to be exposed.

My simple rule is this:

An MP should NOT profit from being an MP (apart from their salary); conversely, an MP should not have to use their salary to pay for expenses incurred as part of being an MP.

Fairly simple really.

So what does this mean practically?

Going forward:
ALL capital gain on a property which has been funded by the taxpayer should be returned to the fees office. NOT just pay the CGT.
NO claiming for accountants.
NO claiming for food (apart from biccies for constituents etc)
A set amount for furnishing a second home, say £5 grand, renewable every 5 years.
Utility bills, council tax etc. all claimable
Mortgage interest claimable up to an upper mortgage limit (not the £1250 per month or whatever the govt is banging on about - what they going to do when the interest rate changes the dorks!) but up to say a £250K mortgage.

Punishments

Where an MP has done anything that is outside the law, then get the police/HMRC involved and they should be suspended immediately. Simple as it would be in any other organisation. If found guilty, criminal charges as per any other member of the public.

Playing the rules? I think most are guilty of that. Need to go think!

Politics, British Gas, Red Letter Days, Guitars and morals

Whooah - what a title.

Rant

British Gas

Having moved twice now within the space of a year, I can honestly say this lot do not have a clue about running a business.

I won't go into the history as I'll probably end up having a stroke, but today I received a call.

"Hello Mr. UB41, we spoke last week about your bill"

"Err, did we? I called yesterday to point out you'd read the wrong meter"

"Let me check my notes - ah OK, we're just calling you to tell you we'll be sending the bill soon"

"Thanks"

What a waste of 5 minutes of both mine and the caller's lives.

Red Letter Days

My better half bought me a Red Letter Day gift for my birthday recently.

It was for an Allen Carr stop smoking clinic (Imagine my delight when I opened it).

In all seriousness, I have found Allen's Easyway method the most successful one I have tried in the past.

So, I call the clinic only to be told that I have to book through Red Letter Days.

OK, so I try the RLD website only to discover that no dates are available, so I call.

"No problem sir, we're just loading the new dates on, they'll be on the web tomorrow and you can book".

That was Tuesday.

Had a look Wednesday and surprise surprise, nothing on their site, so I call again. I'm told to keep checking back on the website.

I point out to the "consultant" that it should not be my responsibility to check each day, the dates should be there and why can't I book it?

He promises to call me back as soon as practical.

So I get a call today. First available date is the 5th June. I ask if it is on the website only to be told "not yet".

I'm about to write down the dates, only to discover he's telling me about the dates in Staines and I want to go to Raynes Park.

....apparently he'll have to get back to me.

What a pain in the backside - all stressed now so I need a fag.

Politics

"Troughgate" continues today with more news of expense abuses, and in the case of Margaret Moran, a lot of dodgy stuff about "not for profit" companies gaining public funding only for Ms. Moran to claim yet more expenses.
Not right.

Brown is all over the place with his handling of this. One minute Blears behaviour is unacceptable, the next minute, she's his favourite MP.

I honestly think Brown is losing the plot. His style of micro-management/control freak or whatever you want to call it just cannot cope with the volume. His performance at Prime Ministers Questions yesterday was poor, everything seems to need a committee to decide. There's just no leadership.

The idea of some quango overseeing expenses is typical of Labour. There is nothing wrong with the current system as long as it is publicised. The electorate will decide if claims are "above board".

It is NOT the system that is wrong, it is the people that abuse it. End of.

Life

More guitar practice today - I've only been learning for about a month and some days it just flows whereas others I sound liek a chimp with a mandolin. Just need to keep at it.

No news yet on the job front but CV's dispatched aplenty.

I'm thinking of getting back into dabbling in shares, although given the S&P warning on the UK economy, does it have farther to fall? Think I'll hang fire for a few days and see which way the markets are trending.

Philosophies

I started off with a rather long post about right and wrong. I'd like to extend that today to Morals and Ethics.

Firstly however, I'd like to modify my definition of Wrong.

"To deliberately set out to hurt a member of society"

The diligent reader will see I have replaced "another member of our society" with "a member of society".

My logic for this is that you must include yourself in the definition. This is to cover things like drug abuse, self harm etc.
The other point is how to define "our" society. Who is "us"?

It's a good change because it means less words in the definition, which to my mind tightens things up.

I actually looked up in the dictionary the words "Moral" and "Ethic". They are words we use a lot in daily life, and I wondered whether I was using them correctly.
It looks like they boil down to the same thing - right and wrong.

"Moral" mentions good/bad and right/wrong. "Ethic" mentions "Moral standards". All very "samey".

I won't include the definitions here as anyone can look them up.

If you're not with my train of thought here, you must be bored out of your mind reading this.

My logic is by defining these principles, I can apply them to any scenario and come up with an answer I can live with.

Most of us can generally describe something which appears "right" or "wrong", and that is probably an extent of our upbringing/education etc. So an automatic reaction.

But do we understand what underpins our interpretation of right and wrong? Hence the definitions.

So when our esteemed leader gives soundbites such as "moral compass", what he is essentially saying is to head in the direction that is "right" rather than "wrong". Viz a viz not to hurt a member of society, and in fact actually improve society.

All a bit obvious mumbo jumbo?

Maybe for now, but as I build on the definitions, we can use the principles to analyse events/politics/governments whatever to see if they are fundamentally right.

Another restructure

Still early days yet, but what I'm finding is I'd like to write about several things in one post, rather than saving them up for several entries.

So what I am going to do is split each post under three separate headings:

1) My daily rant - what is hacking me off

2) My life update (what, if anything, have I been doing that is worth writing about)

3) My philosphies (read long term views/principles etc)

OK, job's a good 'un and ready to go!

Expenses again - keeping topical

More revelations over the last few days. No surprises really.

What still beggars belief is the MP's sense of "entitlement".

The Malik "500 other MP's claim similar amounts". i.e. The maximum

The Speaker's alleged "I din't come into politics to not get what is owed to me"

...and I could go on ad nauseaum.

My assessment of the one's who are refusing to pay anything back, is that they are fully aware that they will not be re-elected, thus the gravy train has stopped for them. They know that giving anything back is futile (in terms of their election hopes) and it's thus a question of morals versus greed.

No surprises at the outcome of that one eh?

So where do we go from here?

Soundbites like "root and branch reform" yada yada are all well and good, but in practical terms, how does one go about achieving that?

I think what we are seeing here is just the tip of the iceberg. We've already seen other stories regarding the House of Lords (Baroness Udding, Howarth and Hollis) as well as the utterly corrupt Taylor and Truscott.

I'm sure the Civil Service has it's miscreants, and don't get me started on quangos.

So, here we have big spenders of public money which needs to be accounted for.

I personally subscribe to the "value for money" mantra, i.e. the benefits outweigh the expense.

I don't subscribe to political soundbites from out current government where "we've increased spending by xx billion on yy department".

I could quite easily increase my spending on my groceries bill by getting a taxi to a supermarket 100 miles away. Does that make my groceries any better? Nope. Have I spent more money on them? Yes.

So value for money is important to me.

How do we assess whether the money spent is adding value?

Clearly someone needs to check what has been spent, and whether it has delivered value for money.
Not all change delivers value for money, sometimes the projected benefits don't materialise or costs overrun, but the majority of change should deliver value for money, and we must learn from change that does not.

I'm sure Terms of Reference and Measures of Success etc. are all nicely written down and tracked by the various government bodies, but who are they accountable to? (Clearly the public, but who actually sits down and examines the detail?)
The government? Hmm, they're as honest as the day is long (i.e. Scandinavian Winter).

One to mull over for the day I think!