The Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded on 20th April killing all aboard and eventually sank leaving an uncapped oil well on the sea floor.

I do not for one minute want to imply that this disaster is anything other than epic. It is the world's third most serious oil spill in history and the second most serious spill caused by an industrial accident rather than a war (the most serious spill was during the first Iraq War, and we have some way to go before the amount of oil spilt in the Gulf of Mexico exceeds that spilt in Iraq). I do not however believe that BP are being treated fairly over it, nor that the United States are in any position to lecture BP (and, by extension, Britain) on industrial accidents. Let's have a brief look at their record from the 1980s:

Union Carbide gas disaster

In December 1984 the Union Carbide chemicals plant in Bhopal leaked lethal chemicals into the surrounding environment, exposing over 500,000 people and ultimately killing 15,000. The accident happened as a result of endemic mismanagement and violations of health and safety procedures. Union Carbide eventually paid $470m in compensation 15 years later, equivalent to $940 per exposed victim. The Union Carbide plant in Bhopal now stands derelict and the area is still contaminated. Neither Union Carbide or their new owners Dow Chemical have made any attempt at cleaning it up. It is the world's worst industrial disaster in terms of human deaths*.

Piper Alpha explosion and fire

In July 1988 the Piper Alpha oil rig in the North Sea, operated by US firm Occidental, was destroyed in an explosion and fire which killed 167 workers, leaving only 59 survivors. The enquiry that followed was critical of Piper Alpha's operator, Occidental, which was found guilty of having inadequate maintenance and safety procedures, but no criminal charges were ever brought against it.

Exxon Valdez oil tanker spill

In March 1989 the Exxon oil tanker Exxon Valdez hit the Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound and spilt a minimum of 750,000 barrels of oil into the surrounding waters. The collision happened as a result of a combination of factors, including broken sonar equipment (which Exxon Valdez Shipping considered too expensive to repair and operate) and crew fatigue and workload caused by the company's failure to provide a sufficient crew. They were initially ordered to pay $287m in actual damages and $5b in punitive damages but this was reduced to a total of $507m after a series of appeals from Exxon. Hundreds of thousands of birds and animals were killed and the effects of the spill were felt for years afterwards.

The point of reminding everyone about these incidents is that nobody has a perfect record when it comes to this sort of thing. These things happen, thankfully not all that often, but they do happen and they will continue to happen, although their frequency will no doubt become less and less as technology and regulation improves over time. In this regard I think that it's completely unfair and unnecessary to vilify British Petroleum over the Deepwater Horizon disaster. I have absolutely no doubt that they are doing all they can to contain this disaster and will continue to make amends far into the future. But they cannot do that if they are basically going to be wiped out by an angry and vengeful United States government and frankly hypocritical United States big oil companies.

Insatiable thirst for oil

The only reason why we have deep water drilling projects in the first place is because our insatiable appetite for oil and oil based products has meant that resources that are easier and cheaper to exploit are now running low and so we have to look to more expensive and risky sources. Oil companies from all around the world seem to have no problem in doing whatever is necessary to satisfy this thirst. It just so happens that an accident has happened to BP, but in all reality it could have happened to Exxon, Chevron, Shell or any other oil company, and if what I've learnt in the news about the response plans for such a disaster being identical between all these companies then it really was just a case of luck as to who would have to deal with it first.

Clean Energy

For decades and decades huge oil companies have wielded disproportionate amounts of power in the business and political arenas of the United States. Some recent presidents have been little more than puppets for Big Oil. Thankfully the current president isn't, but he still represents a country that makes a hell of a lot of money out of oil. I applaud his commitment to cleaner energy that he has announced since this disaster happened, but I do rather feel that it's like trying to rub ointment into a gaping wound at this point. For years and years oil companies have been suppressing clean energy technologies and companies that would otherwise threaten their business by quietly buying them up and shutting them down, without fear of any reprisals from government or politicians. This has to stop and oil companies have to appreciate that, like record companies, their business models need updating in this modern world.

Compensation hypocrisy

BP is a key company in most UK pension funds, which means that this disaster is going to severely impact those funds. This is serious news in an economy that is barely out of recession and now has a deficit of extraordinary proportions following a devastating financial downturn, a financial downturn which, not incidentally, was in part caused by the United States in the first place. So if we're going to start talking about massive amounts of compensation from BP to the United States and the people whose livelihoods are being affected by this let's also start talking about compensation to the UK from all the financial institutions in the United States who brought about the banking crisis and the meltdown that followed it two years ago. Until then I'm not interested.

It should also not go un-noted that the Deepwater Horizon rig was leased by BP from an American company and was operated by American employees, to provide a product that would feed the American market. BP really are just the unlucky face of this enterprise. In future I don't expect they'll make the same mistake again and just let American companies make and take the flack for their own mess.

Conclusion

So, rant over. In conclusion, let BP get on with the job and stop hassling them. It's better to let them spend the time doing rather than explaining when something goes wrong, like any techie will tell you. It would be a different story if it was an American company rather than BP, the fact that it wasn't an American company is down to nothing more than shear luck.

I have a lot of respect for Barrack Obama, more than I've ever had for any other United States president in my lifetime. He has utterly transformed the image of the United States in this country and internationally following the disastrous reign of George Bush Jnr. But as the title of this post suggests, he's definitely lost his shine over this and needs to be careful not to undo all his good work by pandering hypocritical outrage at home.

* I personally consider the Chernobyl disaster to be the world's worst industrial accident, even though far fewer people were killed either directly or indirectly.

Share on Facebook, Twitter and goodness knows what else

The Dear Leader, Gordon Brown, has finally been forced to called a General Election for Thursday 6th May. How fortunate for him that the pesky national rail strike that was to go ahead this week was stopped by the high court at the the last possible minute, that would have been terribly embarrassing for him to have to announce a General Election on a day when nobody could get work wouldn't it?

Regardless, let's get down to business. This general election is the most long awaited election in recent history, although the really delicious irony is that if Gordon Brown had done what he should have done and called a General Election as soon as he became our un-elected Prime Minister, the popularity of both himself and his wretched party at the time would have meant that we would at this point still be waiting for another two years for it. Crisis averted, nonetheless, even if the aversion did come about because of a grotesque disregard for democracy. And please don't give me that crap about "you vote for the party, not the man", everyone knows that's not how it really works.

It should come as no surprise to anybody that I intend to vote for the Conservatives on May 6th. I have never voted Labour nor will I ever vote Labour. Because of this I have never enjoyed life under a government that I have voted for, since the first General Election that I was eligible to vote in was in 1997, when this disaster of a government first came to power. This is why I have complained so vociferously about the government for so many years - I have a personal belief that people should not have the right to complain about a government that they themselves voted in. You made your bed, now you have to lie in it. The same will apply to me should the Conservatives win this election. Remember this at the polling booth if you want me to shut up for the next 4-5 years, that in itself should be incentive enough for anyone to vote Tory :)

There's a number of issues and reasons to discuss as to why I am going to vote Conservative. It's not all to do with class background and upbringing, and even if it was Labour voters are more guilty of habitual voting than any other section of the electorate. All this "me Dad voted Lairbuh, an'is Dad voted Lairbuh, an'is Dad went on't Jarrow March, so ah'll vote Lairbuh an'all" bullshit and the more modern "OMG! The evil Tories!!!1" hysterical nonsense that is so widespread on social networking sites frustrates the living hell out of me and so I won't condone it for any party's supporters. Everybody should by now know that no party is like what it used to be, especially not Labour who were willing to go as far to admit it with their "New" party name in 1997 and their new centre-left position meant that they won. Had they stuck to their irrelevant and outdated "old Labour" values they would still be on the opposition benches where they belong.

Before I move on to specific election issues I would like underline the importance of everyone who is eligible to vote to do so, even if you don't want to vote for any of the available candidates and you spoil your voting card. It should be mandatory to vote (or spoil) with a stiff financial penalty for anyone who doesn't. You don't get to do this very often and so everybody should make the most of it when they do. It is also critically important for voters in marginal seats to make sure that they vote. Remember that under currency constituency boundary arrangements, recently revised or not, it is much much easier for Labour to win seats than it is any other party, so if you don't want another Labour government make sure you get off your arse.

Here is reminder of the 2005 election results from my blog posted after the last General Election, where Labour only had to secure 35% of the vote in order to secure 55% of seats, thereby providing them with the majority they needed for a third term of government. How, exactly, is this fair?

The travesty of democracy that were the 2005 General Election results

I've been told that since the last election constituency boundaries have been revised, but I'll wager anything that they haven't been revised all that much, and certainly not to the extent where it's now a level playing field for all parties. Indeed, constituency boundaries are not the only reasons why the system is stacked in Labour's favour.

Now on to the specific issues, which are both important to me and most of which should be important to everyone else:

Labour's "performance" over the past 13 years

Labour's election pledges, whilst not only being as generic and vague as election pledges could possibly be (in order that their eventual implementation can mean as many things as possible), also read like they're from a party in opposition that's trying to oust a longstanding and hated incumbent government, and not from a party that's already been in power for three terms and thirteen years. Thirteen years is more than enough time for any government to achieve what it promised to achieve since coming to power and despite this Labour still blame the majority of their woes on the previous Conservative government. Are they going to do that forever? I thought they were supposed to fix everything the evil Tories did wrong? Just how long am I being expected to wait?

The fact is that Labour have performed abysmally since coming to power on so many fronts. You'll note that I've not said "all fronts", because that would be untrue and unfair, but it is true and fair to say that their failures vastly outweigh their successes. You'd have to be a real idiot not to realise that. They've had their chance, and for the most part they've fluffed it, in some cases to a degree that we simply couldn't have imagined only a few years ago. I am not prepared to give them five more years in which to continue to cock things up, frankly, and anybody who is willing to grant them this really needs their head examined.

When reading this blog post I expect Labour supporters to be thinking "ah yes, but Labour have said they will do $whatever on this issue, which is better than what the evil Tories are proposing". The fact is that I simply do not believe them because of their recent (and indeed not so recent) record. The Labour election manifesto is nothing more than toilet paper to me, it may as well be blank. Indeed, it would actually be more credible and believable if it was blank.

Economy

This really is the single most important issue that practically everyone is talking about during this campaign, and quite rightly so. If you're not aware that Labour have left us with a £167,000,000,000 national deficit as a result of their fiscal policies, rampant public spending and government waste then you really have been living under a rock for the past few years and need to wake up and smell the coffee. It's going to be one bastard of a hangover to shift. The trouble is that Labour don't seem to want to start the process of shifting it, they just want to continue drinking, thus making the problem worse and worse. Their performance and broken promises on the economy since coming to power have destroyed any credibility they ever had on the subject and we are once again left with a country on the verge of bankruptcy after the biggest boom and the biggest bust since the second world war, something which Labour explicitly said they would prevent from happening in their 1997 manifesto. They simply cannot be trusted to fix something which they were so instrumental in causing in the first place.

The 1980s were better than the 1970s.

The country's financial position coupled with the recent industrial unrest (public sector, British Airways and (cynically blocked) national rail strikes) is horrifically reminiscent of the dying days of the pathetic Labour government in 1979 who were as desperate to cling on to power then as they are now. Labour will always be the same and they will never learn from their mistakes. Labour recently tried to scare everybody by saying that if the Tories won the election they would take Britain back to the 1980s. If this is the case then bring it on, the 1980s were a prosperous decade and a darn sight better than the disaster of the 1970s, which is what Labour have taken us back to.

Public spending, non-jobs and waste

Since coming to power, 66% of new jobs created in the United Kingdom have been public sector jobs, all funded by the taxpayer with an ever increasing tax bill from Labour which has by now doubled the UK's tax burden since 1997. This is absolutely shocking. You cannot improve the economy of a country by expanding its state. Not only is that a rocky road to out and out communism but it is also a fiscal lie. Only wealth-creating private sector jobs can improve the economic performance of a nation. This is pretty basic economics and yet something which our glorious Prime Minister and chancellor of ten years apparently doesn't understand since he is so insistent on increasing the "employment tax" that is employers' National Insurance, presumably to pay for even more public sector jobs that we don't need.

For a concise list of other ways in which this government wantonly squanders hard earned money from tax payers, even ignoring the giant welfare bill (which, incidentally, is greater each year than the total receipts from income tax), I draw your attention to the Department of Government Waste, a parody site set up by the Conservatives but which is based on real facts. The full list is in their downloadable PDF.

The Conservatives, however, have made it very clear that further tax hikes are not the way to go and cutting government waste is a high priority for them. I simply do not understand how anybody can say that this is a bad idea. Indeed it may lead to some public sector job losses, but boo hoo, they can join the real world for a change and put up with the risks of working in the private sector instead of wasting public money in public sector fantasy land, where nobody ever gets sacked no matter how bad they are at their job and everybody gets a nice fat index-linked pension at the end of it. It's that which we can no longer afford, not scrapping the endless tax rises that Labour have relentlessly subjected us to for 13 years despite their early promises not to do so.

Lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender (LGBT) issues

This, I will admit, is a thorny issue with the Conservatives and we as a minority have much to be thankful for to Labour. This is an area in which they have actually significantly delivered on their original manifesto. They have delivered greater equality legislation to everyone with alternative sexualities and they have delivered civil partnerships and adoption rights to homosexual and bi-sexual couples. I'm not for one second going to refuse credit where credit is due on this.

One could argue, however, that such legislation would eventually happen, Labour government or no Labour government. I think it's probably fair to say that it would have taken a bit longer under a Conservative government, but I do believe that we would still have it by now and it would be a case of better late than never. I also do not believe for one minute that a new Tory government would even dream of taking any of it away from us.

However, what I do know for sure is that we now do have what we asked for. The job's done, complete and delivered. But I missed the part of the legislation that means that I as a gay man am obliged to reward Labour for what they have done by only ever voting for them and never for the "evil Tories". Indeed, I'll go as far as to say that I'm under absolutely no obligation to do so whatsoever. Labour have come good in one specific area and done extraordinarily badly in most others. Our wonderful new legislation has quite the price tag attached to it when you consider all the crap that's been associated with the party that brought it to us. Many may question whether it was actually worth it all things considered.

The Conservatives have a questionable history when it comes to gay rights, no doubt, and it would seem that they still do have a few bad apples, with Chris Grayling being the most notorious example at the moment. David Cameron missed a beat this week when he didn't fire him for his comments about bed and breakfast owners and I am disappointed about this (although Grayling has since admitted that he was wrong to say what he did), but it's still not a reason to condemn a whole party to opposition forever. Indeed, anybody who votes for or against a particular party based on one single issue is both selfish and shortsighted.

I'm also quite sick of being asked "but how can you be gay and Tory?". Get a grip, the two aren't by any means mutually exclusive. Think back to when you were asked "but how can you like boys when you yourself are a boy?". It's as annoying, ignorant and insulting as that, so my advice to you is to grow up and get the fuck over it, because I am most certainly not the only "gay Tory" (if I have to accept a label) out there. Indeed a recent poll for Pinknews.co.uk recorded 25% of those asked as supporting the Conservatives, with 25% supporting the Liberal Democrats and 28% supporting Labour. Please don't try and tell me that gay Tory voters are in a tiny minority.

Education

Although I am aware that primary and secondary school education has suffered somewhat under Labour neither will be the focus of this section because I do not know the specific facts. All I do know is that school leavers these days, now having the benefit of an entire education under Labour, seem to be barely literate and for the most part unfit to enter the world of work. Major business leaders have specifically complained about this and I really feel sorry for the poor buggers who've had Labour's dumbed-down education system forced upon them.

Yet despite this more and more of them are entering higher education thanks to Labour's unnecessary and seemingly arbitrary target of sending 50% of school leavers to university. For no reason. The country wasn't short of graduates before or anything, Labour just didn't think it was fair that some people were graduates whilst many weren't. It just wasn't socialism. As a result we have a massive over-supply of mediocre graduates with Mickey Mouse degrees believing that it entitles them to a better job, which of course it doesn't since employers have simply upped their qualification requirements to compensate. What Labour have done isn't fair on anybody, least of all the students themselves.

Now, all this would be slightly less baffling if at the same time Labour hadn't completely ridden roughshod over student and university funding since 1997. The National Union of Students (NUS) campaigned vociferously on behalf of their members (whether their members liked it or not) in 1997 to get Labour elected, and what have Labour done for them since? They've abolished student grants (within mere months of coming to power), increased tuition fees and cut university funding - at the same time as trying to get even more people to become students in the first place. What the bloody hell is that all about then? I hope that the NUS are proud of themselves, frankly.

Crime and punishment

The statistics will show that under Labour crime has fallen and continues to fall, but I do not for one minute believe that it is as clear cut as that. Everybody knows that statistics can be manipulated and that Labour  are the grand masters at doing it. Indeed, Gordon Brown himself was caught out less than three times in March of this year alone for mis-representing statistics, which eventually lead to a telling off from the Office of National Statistics [letter] . There will always be a vast difference between reported and un-reported crime and it's also important to remember that not all types of crime are equal. Some types of crime are more serious than others and affect real people in real ways, such as violent crime and burglary, rather than comparatively more victimless crimes such as insurance fraud and so on.

The police forces are bogged down with a target-driven culture imposed on them by Labour and spend inordinate amounts of time on paperwork even for trivial matters, in contrast to Labour's (since disproven) claims that police officers spend 80% of their time on the beat (where "the beat" is also some contrived new-Labour definition of the beat and not what you or I fondly remember). Labour have introduced Police Community Support Officers which are nice to see around and about on the street but they have no more powers than a traffic warden did back in the day, and we don't have any proper traffic wardens now, just Parking Enforcement Officers with even less powers. It's not all about the number of bums on seats, we need the right bums on the right seats.

We need to move away from the ridiculous culture where criminals have more rights than victims and make sure that anyone acting reasonably to stop a crime or apprehend a criminal is not arrested or prosecuted, as well as or instead of the criminal which seems to happen over and over again since it's easier to hit your Labour-dictated targets but arresting and processing the "soft option" member of the public who thought he was only doing his civil duty rather than the "I know my rights, mate" criminal who'll likely get away with it and thus deny your a target point. If anybody should be defining targets for the police force it should be the public, not politicians.

Immigration

Labour have completely lost control of immigration into this country. The immigration "system" is nothing but a complete farce that is exploited and abused by thousands of people every year. Labour have proven themselves to be unable and/or unwilling to do anything about it (unwilling, perhaps, because immigrants typically end up voting Labour should they eventually bother to obtain the right to vote). The trouble is that anyone who is willing to speak out against immigration is immediately labelled a racist by hysterical politically correct left wingers whose priority is to simper and wring their hands in order to make sure that the needs and demands of immigrants come above the needs of established citizens of this country. This really has to stop and people need to get a fucking grip.

We all know the facts when it comes to migrants who want to come to this country. Few are actually in genuine need of asylum, most are economic migrants. Even those who claim asylum are on shaky ground since if you are in a position where you need to claim asylum you are supposed to claim it in the nearest country that is qualified to afford it to you, which includes all the EU countries that you have to travel through in order to reach the UK. There is only one reason why this otherwise unremarkable nation is singled out in such a way and that is our monstrously generation welfare state. I know it, you know it.

I've a long list of things that I think need to be done about this. I don't think any of them are unreasonable. The Conservatives only really cover two of them - only admitting migrants that will "benefit the economy" and offering English language instruction, and even with the latter I think it should be a requirement rather than something that is merely offered. No party goes far enough to tackle the immigration problems in their manifesto, no party would even dare given the ridiculous hysteria that is whipped up every time this emotive issue is mentioned.

It would do us all a lot of good, and I can't believe that I'm about to say this given my general position on Europe, if rules on immigration and asylum were unified across all European countries. For example, in France new migrants are entitled to no benefits whatsoever; they have to have lived and paid tax in that country for a number of years before becoming entitled to them. In Germany asylum claimants are all kept in holding centres until their claims are processed, at which point they are either allowed into the country or sent directly back to where they came from. You won't find any failed asylum seekers living illegally in Germany. We get it wrong in every way imaginable.

Make no mistake, this isn't about not liking people with brown skin, far from it. There are plenty of hard working people in this country with brown skin, many having been here for generations and multiculturalism is in general a good thing. This is about people with skins of all possible colours abusing a weak and exploitable system and then living off those very same hard working people. It isn't acceptable and we can't afford it. Britain is a soft-touch when it comes to immigration and this is well known in countries from where most of the immigrants come from. Migration to Britain is even packaged up and sold as one-way tours by foreign firms.

I'll stop here with this issue because I really could go on forever and it would probably be racist or something.

Labour lies, sleaze and arrogance

Finally I would like to remind everyone that one of Labour's major election pledges in 1997 was that they were going to be whiter than white, in contrast to the "sleaze-ridden" Tories of the time. I'm sure I don't need to remind everyone of John Prescott's now infamous speech on the subject. Since then Labour have proven themselves time and time again to be more arrogant and sleaze-infested than the Tories could ever have even dreamed of being.

In May 1997, Blair promised his government would be purer than pure as an antidote to the Tories' sleaze. Within months, Formula 1 racing owner Bernie Ecclestone had won an exemption from tobacco advertising after donating £1m to Labour. Every week there seems to be a scandal of sort involving a Labour MP or someone who works for the Labour government, including the recent revelation of high profile Labour MPs pimping themselves out for thousands per day. Whether the Tories will be any better remains to be seen, but they surely can't be any worse than this shower.

Regardless, it's by no means something that Labour can now campaign on and is indeed something they should not have campaigned on in the first place given their record. Instead of the fair and honest party they promised they would be we have an arrogant, desperate incumbent government that will not admit its mistakes, puts itself first and will do anything to cling to power. To hell with everyone else and their interests. These are not the actions of a "party of the people".

That's it for specific issues. There are of course numerous smaller issues, many of which are just as important, but I have to draw the line with this blog post somewhere.

This will in all likelihood be the only major blog about the election that I post before the election itself on Thursday 6th May because I wanted to get all my rants into one blog and out of the way as early as possible into the campaign. I will however be posting a significant election blog in the week or so after the election, whichever way it goes. Until then I will of course be ranting daily about election related matters on Twitter and Facebook. On Twitter I tag election-related posts with the hashtags #ukelection and/or #labourfail when space permits (click on either to search for my tweets that have those hashtags). More or less everything I post to Twitter then gets automatically posted to my Facebook profile, which can only be viewed if you are a friend on Facebook.

All three main parties have published their full manifestos online, but I have provided links to them here:

• Conservative Manifesto 2010
• Labour Manifesto 2010
• Liberal Democrat Manifesto 2010

Share on Facebook, Twitter and goodness knows what else

Madoff's fraud is based on the amazingly simple Ponzi technique. All you have to do is to convince suckers to give you some money with the promise of a guaranteed return, and when that return is made you convince them to re-invest the return rather than withdraw it. Rather than sending money when the investment matures, you simply send a false statement. At some point, obviously, people will want to withdraw their money from the scheme, at which point you do all you can to convince them otherwise. The scheme collapses when more people insist on withdrawing their investments that can be covered by the actual funds, which is what happened to Madoff when the banking crisis kicked off.

How Madoff managed to keep this scam going for so long and grow it so large is absolutely staggering. Nobody else except Madoff have been indicted, but I find it hard to believe that he worked alone on something so big and that lasted so long. All the necessary fake paperwork was generated by an ancient computer system, housed on one floor of Madoff's offices, never updated of course because to do so would require consultants to come in, risking exposure [source]. Somebody set up those computers in the first place. One also has to wonder if any of the investors questioned as to why the format of their fake paperwork didn't catch up with the times; I expect they were just blinded by loyalty and trust.

What's most alarming is that Madoff's scam wasn't detected by the authorities, namely the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, who investigated Madoff's firm no less than eight times but found nothing. This means that either Madoff is the best con-man of all time, or that the SEC is quite spectacularly useless. Both may very well be the case, but regarding the latter, if I was an investor in the United States I would be very worried now about whatever investment scheme I was committed to, especially if it seemed to be doing consistently well for a number of years. You can be sure that Madoff's isn't the last.

The Devil acutely points out glaring comparisons between Madoff's Ponzi fraud and National Insurance, which is essentially a state enforced, compulsory Ponzi scheme. One day it too will collapse. I hope I'm in the ground before it happens.

Madoff has been jailed for 150 years for what is clearly an unimaginably evil crime in every way.

Share on Facebook, Twitter and goodness knows what else

There will be no penalty that might actually mean something to those responsible. Network Rail directors will not only keep their jobs but they'll likely keep their bonuses too, safe in the knowledge that someone else will clear up their mess and bail them out of their incompetence. The entire board should be fired. That would hit them where it hurts.

I also notice that no form of compensation has been awarded to the affected passengers, who now face a £14m fine for their trouble. It's just pointless money recycling, with suitably inflated administrative fees being creamed off where it's deemed appropriate. Stupidity and shortsightedness compounded on top of stupidity and shortsightedness. I've come to expect little else from 11 years of the New Labour regime, which seems to prioritise some sort of war on common sense. The scary thing is that it's winning it, hands-down.

Share on Facebook, Twitter and goodness knows what else

I am of course speaking about organisations such as H. M. Revenue and Customs, local councils, train operating companies, energy firms and indeed any entity to whom paying money is virtually unavoidable. Nobody likes giving money to any of these organisations and almost all of them charge over the odds for whatever it is they purport to provide, whether it's tax or a train ticket, and giving money to these extortionists is a bitter and resentful process.

Making it "easier" (through exotic and modern payment methods) to pay the extortion demanded is not what people want. Making it more affordable to do so is. So don't try to tell me that you're doing me a favour and making my life easier by allowing me to pay my taxes online using my fucking Oyster card or whatever, it won't fucking wash.

Share on Facebook, Twitter and goodness knows what else

Except they don't. Today Royal Mail did the dirty on them (via The Daily Telegraph) and told everyone just what sort of unreasonable shit their workers demand of them on a daily basis. Ninety two points were made in total, the twelve most notable of which are as follows:

1. Two or three hour minimum daily overtime - so if 30 minutes of actual work is required and completed, then between two and three hours' payment is demanded.
2. An additional allowance claimed for using particular vehicles - regardless of whether the individual has actually driven the vehicle.
3. Automatic overtime if mail volumes reach a certain level - regardless of how many ordinary working hours remain that day.
4. If a delivery round is finished before the end of the paid shift, the employee expects to be able to go straight home. But if it takes 10 minutes longer two to three hours' over time is claimed.
5. Set overtime level is claimed at Christmas, even if there is no need for any additional hours and no extra hours are worked.
6. An additional two hour payment on Easter Saturday - regardless of whether any work required.
7. No flexibility between different parts of the same sorting office - if an employee sorts letters for a particular postcode, they will not sort for the adjacent postcode, even though both activities are often in the same room.
8. Signing in and out for a shift on arrival - so that no record of actual hours worked exists.
9. Collection drivers expect overtime pay for doing collections outside usual route - even if it is done within usual working hours.
10. Overtime to cover for an absent colleague - a full day is claimed, even if only half day needed and worked.
11. Ban on any cross functional working, even of similar tasks under the same roof.
12. Additional meal and grace breaks as custom and practice.

If you felt sorry for them before then I don't see how you can now. Royal Mail, now a private company fighting for survival since it lost its cushy monopoly, should at this point be firing those on strike in blocks of 100 and rehiring from the pool of migrant workers who are only too happy to work twice as hard and for half as much. Want job security? Don't fuck over your employer then. How is it difficult to see the logic in that?

Share on Facebook, Twitter and goodness knows what else

Sales of individual digital tracks on services like Apple Computer Inc.'s iTunes Music Store have increased -- but not nearly enough to offset the slide in CD sales.

This is your first clue. People are buying more individual tracks off iTunes (a service approved and endorsed by the music industry). This is because people are tired of being forced to buy an entire CD when it only contains perhaps two or three tracks that are any good; the rest being filler rubbish. It's just not an economical way of buying music any more and now that people have a way of avoiding it, they're taking full advantage. This may well be a can of worms for the record companies, but it's what consumers have been crying out for for decades.

The article also cites competition for consumer dollars from videogames and DVDs. This is bang on. I can't actually remember the last time I bought a CD, and that's not because I indulge in illegal downloads, because I don't. The simple fact of the matter is that I've not had cause to buy any new music, whether on CD or through iTunes, because nothing has taken my fancy. I do however spend lots of money on DVDs and computer games, and I actually do, I don't download them off the Internet. I spend money on these things in preference to CDs because they are fundamentally better products and offer me far greater value for money than any crummy CD can.

Enjoyment and satisfaction levels aside, I can prove this with simple maths and statistics. A full price chart CD costs £14, whereas a full price chart DVD costs £20. I never actually pay £20 for a DVD, I always wait a few months for it to drop off the chart and then pick it up for £15 or so (something, incidentally, that doesn't seem to happen with CDs, they seem to stay expensive forever). But let's assume we're paying full prices here. My £14 CD gives me at most an hour of music, often less. Per minute, this works out to be just over 23p per minute for my entertainment. The film on the DVD, excluding any special features (which I don't watch because they're usually boring as hell) is probably an hour and 45 minutes, working out to be 19p per minute for my entertainment, which is both cheaper and more satisfyng than a CD because it's a film; it costs far more to produce than an album and you get sound and vision, making the value for money astronomically better than the CD. This is why a DVD is a better product than a CD, and that's why the movie studios get my money instead of the record companies.

The same applies to video (computer) games. A decent game for the PC costs £40 (Grand Theft Auto and Quake 4 being two notable recent purchases). Now I know that computer games are a slightly different beast because their entertainment isn't in the same linear format as a CD or a DVD, but let's apply the same maths in any case. I bought Grand Theft Auto San Andreas in June, a game which I absolutely love and I still play, even though I completed it months ago. My computer claims that I've spent over 100 hours playing it since I installed it, and I've not finished playing with it yet. So far, my entertainment from GTA:SA has cost me just over half a pence per minute.

Remind me again why a CD is a better product and why I should buy one over a DVD or a computer game? Seriously, let's have some sales spiel on it. Sell me your product. Convince me why I should purchase it in preference to a DVD or computer game. Work for your living for heavens' sake. I don't simply assume that people will automatically buy my products, and I don't get all hissy and litigious when they don't; I have to go out and sell them, and jolly hard work it is too. Why should you, Mr. Record Label, be any different?

Granted, nobody can deny that online piracy and CD burning have had an effect on music sales, but it's hard to believe that it's the main reason and I think that the music industry are hiding behind it in order to deflect attention away from their own shortcomings, whether they're doing this conciously or not. Piracy is a red herring, it's always been around in one form or another and the music industry is still around today to tell the tale. One might even suggest that it's an occupational hazard and that the record labels should be building in a certain amount of "wastage" into their business plans, just like a supermarket has to do with spoiled stock or indeed any high street retailer has to do with shoplifting and so on.

If the music industry wants me to start buying their wares again then they need to change the product, and not simply assume that because I'm not buying their crappy manufactured output that I must be a criminal, and how dare I question the creative wisdom of the record labels and how dare I deprive them of their profit targets, etc. They're selling entertainment. If what they sell doesn't entertain me, then I'm not going to buy it. It's as simple as that.

Share on Facebook, Twitter and goodness knows what else

The collapse of Rover can also be attributed to Joe Public. Instead of blaming politicians and management, if you had been bothered about maintaining British manufacturing you would have all bought British, instead of buying cheaper foreign imports!
DW, Chicago USA (UK Expat)

Answers on a postcard please, send directly to the MINISTRY OF EX-PAT HYPOCRISY. Also:

I don't see the directors of MG Rover rushing to put up their own money to save the business, so why should the government bale them out? I suspect that the directors will come out of this far richer than when they started.
Mark J, Stafford, UK

Uh, they put up £45,000,000. Are you living under a rock or something? Keep the fuck up.

This is perhaps more to the point:

As a truck driver, I waited 2 hours to get unloaded at Longbridge. Nobody wanted to know. They wonder why they're losing their jobs!
Adrian Brackley, Cheshire

Part of the reason why Rover is such a dog is because it's never really recovered from being crippled by the unions and their selfish, shortsighted jobsworth members in the 1970s and 1980s. The workers were perfectly willing to screw over Rover at the drop of a hat whenever it suited them. Well I'm sorry, but what goes around comes around. I'm sure Longbridge will be turned into a nice callcentre where you can all be retrained into doing something you'll absolutely hate.

Don't get me wrong, I regret the demise of Rover, I really do, but I feel sorry for the company rather than its workforce. I'm not saying they deserve to lose their jobs, but I am saying that they did nothing to help avoid this inevitable situation over the past 30 years.

Rover simply cannot continue to make shit old cars that nobody wants. It's all very well to lay the blame for underinvestment in research and development and BMW's door, but they cannot be held entirely responsible. After all, for a long time most of Rover's output was based on Hondas, since Honda own (or at least, did own) 20% of Rover. Why is it that the same blame isn't at least in part sent their way?

At the end of the day, Rover is a private company, in business, whether it's got heritage or not. Would the government be bailing my company out if it was about to go under? I don't think so. I'm sorry, but it's a dog eat dog world in business, and if you make shit products that nobody wants then you can't expect your meal tickets to continue to arrive ad infinitum. Let's see your fucking unions argue with that.

Share on Facebook, Twitter and goodness knows what else

"Red Herring" websites that cost an incredible amount of money but at the end of the day proved to be little use to anyone became a thing of the past. The Emperor had finally seen the true nature of his new clothes and was no longer willing to pay over the odds for poor results.

I survived the dot.com crash by not getting involved with any of the silly companies that sprang up at the time, instead choosing to make reasonable money and consistently getting better at what I do. People can now easily see the value in my skillset and experience when they brief me for projects. But along the way I've learnt a few home truths, which I am not afraid to tell customer both new and existing when I need to:

"How much is a website?"

Never EVER ask a web developer this question. Imagine yourself walking in to a car showroom and asking the dealer - "How much is a car?". Ludicrous isn't it? The dealer can't possibly tell you how much a car is because the price of cars ranges from £5,000 to £500,000 depending on what sort of specification you require and how much you're willing to spend.

It's exactly the same with a website. Before a web developer can even give you a ballpark price for developing a new website project, he/she needs to have a reasonably detailed description of what you want it to do.

If you don't know what a website can be capable of, then they will be more than happy to present options to you, in much the same way as a car salesman will explain the meaning of the obscure acronyms you read on a car's option list. You may not know what a car can be capable of, so ask the salesman, he'll tell you. The same applies to web developers, although obviously not on the subject of cars.

You have to tell them what you want, only then can they tell you what it's going to cost. Not all websites are alike. They don't come in a set range of flavours. Almost every single website in the world is unique. You're basically specifying a customised product, with a customised cost.

Fast, Good, Cheap - Pick Any Two

This is golden rule number 1 when constructing a brief for a new project or an extension to an existing project, and it's by no means specific to website software. Think about it carefully: If you want a good quality product in a hurry, it's not going to be cheap. Alternatively, if you're still in a hurry but don't want to spend a lot of money, the product isn't going to be particularly good. Lastly, if quality and low costs really are paramount, then you're not going to have it finished in a hurry. Personally I recommend option 1 followed by option 3 as I'm a perfectionist and actually find it quite difficult to produce something that's not "good".

Few companies, at least of the size that most web development agencies operate at, can offer all three, and those companies who claim to be able to do so often just try to sell you a pre-packaged website solution that probably won't be directly suitable for your purposes, which then of course brings the "quality" factor back into question - are they really offering all three after all?

"I want to be able to update it myself"

This is, has always been, and always will be the biggest double edged sword in the whole website arena. It sounds like a marvellous idea doesn't it - a website that the owner can control and update themselves with no programming knowledge or dependence on the web developer required. Cynics may well claim that web developers don't like to produce such products because it subtracts from maintenance contracts, and to be honest there is an element of that, but it is by no means as extensive as you might think.

Principally, the simpler something becomes, the less flexible it also becomes. Again, this is not specific to web development projects, it applies to pretty much all software and hardware products that require some sort of human interaction, from Microsoft Word to your washing machine.

Let's change the brief here to "I want it to just wash my clothes by pressing a button", when you're buying a washing machine. Imagine a washing machine with just one button - "Wash". Sure, it would wash your clothes, at a fixed temperature and with a fixed programme, and for a lot of people this would be fine. It's simple to use and virtually foolproof. But woe betide it ruins your Club Monaco wool-knit t-shirt because the programme was unsuitable, because then you would need to change how the machine operates when washing such garments. You need another button. Suddenly the machine has become twice as complicated as it was before.

The same applies to "update yourself" websites (the proper name for which is Content Management System, or CMS). I can provide you with a form with one single text box that allows you to change the content of a paragraph on your website. No problem, you just type the text and the paragraph is updated. But now you want to change another paragraph, and not only that, the paragraph is on another page, and furthermore you want to add an image and change the text colour and add a few links. But at the same time, you don't want to have to know anything about HTML. Herein lies the problem.

Now you have two options. If you want your content management system to become more complex to satisfy your growing needs, you either need to start learning HTML (the markup language that's used to define the layout and content of web pages), or you need to invest more money into the CMS in order that you don't have to. One route is obviously more expensive than the other, and each have their disadvantages.

With the first option, many people fall into a common trap known as Microsoft Word, but the trap also applies to other HTML-producing software. Microsoft Word, a popular item of software on most peoples' computers, claims to be able to export normal Word documents as HTML files. This, for the most part, is untrue. It may well be able to product HTML files, but the HTML it produces is the most god-awful excuse for markup code that's ever been seen, and this is not just a personal opinion, this is one of those Internet-wide truths that everyone (bar perhaps Microsoft) accepts. Yet it's all too tempting for website owners just to simply cut and paste Word HTML into the CMS and expect it not to completely screw up their website.

The point here is that allowing people to include their own HTML on their website empowers them to do a wide range of very powerful things. It also allows them to do some very bad things. If you want to manage a complicated website yourself, then you're going to have to learn how to do some complicated things, including learning at least basic HTML that's sympathetic to the site's design and style, rather than how Microsoft Word thinks it should look.

The second option is also not without disadvantage. There is no end to how complicated your CMS can get in order that you don't have to learn any HTML, and therefore there is no end to how much money you can sink into it just because you don't want to have to "know about programming and stuff". This is good for the likes of me, but bad for you. In some cases people spend more money on the CMS so they can then spend their own time updating the site themselves than they would have done paying their web developer to make the changes for them under their maintenance contract. There's a point at which updating the site yourself simply ceased to be cost-effective.

It is necessary to strike a balance between allowing the CMS to automate and you to provide your own creative input by using HTML. The web, despite its apparently simplicity to the average user, is getting more and more complicated by the month underneath. If you want to be involved with controlling the back end then you too will need to become more complicated and technically literate. If you don't have the skills for this, are not willing to learn the skills for this, or if it otherwise scares you, then leave it to someone else who does have the skills and isn't scared to take advantage of it.

Rhydio customers should note that this quasi-rant is not aimed at anyone in particular - I just sometimes get this feeling of tremendous dread whenever I hear the immortal words "I want to be able to update it myself" :)

Share on Facebook, Twitter and goodness knows what else

So here are the main issues, at least in my view:

• Too many students are going to University these days, often to do useless, "Mickey Mouse" degrees (media studies, leisure and tourism studies, etc.)
• Many of these students have no intention of actually doing any work, whether that means they get a degree or not.
• Whether a student succeeds or fails, they still use the same financial resources to pay for their course, both from the LEA and their own pockets.
• Many students from poorer backgrounds cannot afford to attend University, even if they are exceptionally bright.

So here's my idea: How about some sort of "discount" system that's directly linked to A-Level grades? I believe there's a system in use at the moment called "UCAS points", whereas when I went to University it was just A-Level points. I don't know about the exact system that UCAS points use, but let's for the sake of argument assume that they are interchangeable with the former A-Level points system, in that for every grade you receive two points, so an "A" grade would get you 10 points, a "E" grade would get you 2 points, and a "U" grade none at all.

30 points therefore equates to three "A" grades at A-Level, or 6 "A" grades at AS-Level (i.e. excellent grades, proof of hard work and commitment). Let's then say that if you get 30 points (or more), you receive a 100% discount on your contribution to your university tuition fees. If you get 6 points (three "E" grades), you get a 20% discount. If you receive three "U" grades (zero points), you receive no discount at all, assuming of course a university will take you with those grades (stranger things have happened).

This system would bring the following benefits:

• Students who work hard during their A-Levels are rewarded with a cheaper education, for they deserve it. They are more likely to make the best of the opportunity presented to them.
• Students who don't work hard during their A-Levels are not rewarded as much. It will be more difficult for them to got to university, but the incentive is there.
• Students who don't work at all at their A-Levels aren't rewarded at all.
• I know it's generalising, but it's normally safe to assume that people who don't work hard at their A-Levels aren't likely to bother to change their ways when they get to university, and so having no discount on their tuition fees may well deter them from going to university at all, it would be a waste of everyone's time, including their own. They would be better off starting their career at 18.
• Bright students from poorer backgrounds who would not normally be able to afford a university education would then be able to because of the large discount they would receive from doing well at A-Level.
• The theory that if you work hard, you will be rewarded will be restored, rather than the current system of rewarding people whether they work hard or not.

Obviously, I can't have possibly covered all the angles here because I don't know the education system well enough and I never will, but don't you think that at least initially it seems like a reasonably sensible idea?

But then, as with everything that's "reasonably sensible" in this country, those very words mean that it and nothing like it will ever even be tabled, much less implemented. That is, however, a rant for another day. Probably tommorow.

The only disadvantages I can see with this is that it may be necessary to raise the standard tuition fees in order that those with low or no discounts are able to subsidise those with high or complete discounts. At the end of the day, universities still need a certain amount of money in order to operate properly, and if they just take A-grade students then they're going to be a bit short of dosh. That's a problem for an accountant though.

Don't like this idea? Too right wing? Think I'm ill-informed about such matters? Sorry about that, but I'll write whatever I like here.

Share on Facebook, Twitter and goodness knows what else