Cllr. Gavin Ayling

A lesson in consumer-based policy.

Private companies should work towards improving their customer service in order to achieve the greatest market penetration that they can. Companies that treat their customers the way they would like to be treated make more money.

There are exceptions: Richard Branson does not focus his company’s policy on customers because he knows that happy employees work harder for their customer naturally. Virgin has, because of this and Branson’s nouce, diversified more successfully than most other companies.

But in the banking sector, First Direct is famous for answering the telephone the instant it rings and ten times out of ten, being polite and sorting out problems immediately. Citibank and Halifax, meanwhile, are known for not managing to deal with their customers effectively.

As a blogger and someone who is read and appears reasonably high in search engines, I feel it is my duty when I am the victim of appalling customer service to report this to you, the great consuming public. I don’t do this when I have an unusual experience or when I have been upset by an individual member of staff, I do this when all contact with a company at all levels and without fail, are painful and in need of managerial attention.

In this respect I would gladly offer The Softback Preview (TSP) some free advice: Focus on customer service.

The following is an e-mail that I have sent off to BCA’s Chief Executive, BCA’s Press Officer and TSP’s customer services:

CC: I have published this e-mail to my blog for public consumption www.gavpolitics.co.uk/blog/

Dear Tanmaya

You should really keep a record of communication.

I have a parcel that you are (at separate responses):

1) Collecting (at your expense)
2) Sending me pre-paid labels to return
3) Not collecting, I should have declined the offer in time.

It would make sense if your staff were consistent in dealing with me.

Some background: I e-mailed before the book was posted asking that it not be sent to me. I received a confirmation in reply saying that it would not be sent (Anshul Maithani on 1 October 2005). I then asked you to collect it [1] and you agreed (Akhil Sharma on 19 October 2005).

I then said I was moving home to chivvy you along - you said you’d send out pre-paid labels [2] (Pranav Apte on 14 November 2005).

I then complained (again) that neither of the promises had come true and Lorraine DSouza said that I should have cancelled it in time [3].

I’m hoping now that you can get yourselves organised and correct this before the threatening letters start being sent by your over-zealous billing department. And while you’re there, please cancel my membership.

You can contact me to rejoin when you’ve sorted out the administrative nightmare that is TSP (and sister companies).

Yours sincerely

As always I will report any responses on this blog.

There are some things on Earth that are finite. There are others that are effectively infinitely renewable.

Sunlight, wind and tides will continue all the time we have the sun and moon. All the time there is sun there will be trees and other plants. Throughout the solar system there are giddying amounts of metals as diverse as titanium, aluminium and iron.

But in the whole solar system there is only one place we know of that contains coal, gas or oil - Earth.

There are also three main focuses for the green movement:

1) Reducing CO₂ emmissions which cause Global Warming
2) Stopping wastage of metals and glass which have finite terrestrial sources
3) Stopping the human encroachment on animal/plant habitats

On CO₂
The US is the world’s greatest polluter creating 25% of all the world’s CO₂ emmissions. But China’s rapidly catching up. China’s gift to Earth right now is sulphur dioxide (SO₂) in quantities previously unseen. 75% of China’s power comes from coal-fired power stations. It is not something that the Chinese can correct in anything like a reasonable period of time. And yet the governments of the West are wasting as much effort as they can in trying to reduce the relatively small amounts of pollution created by the other 5 billion people.

This is not the same argument used by people walking down a high street at night who comment that there’s no point saving power when the shops are illuminated all night (there is); this is far more fundamental. The sun provides us with enough energy that we do not need to burn fossilised organic matter. It is the sun’s energy which causes heat transfer in the oceans which trigger winds. It is the sun’s energy that we trap in solar cells. It is the sun which gives life to all plants on earth.

On metallic resources
It will soon be economically viable to mine asteroids for metals used in manufacturing. Our paltry recycling efforts, while helpful in reducing land-fill, will not help us avoid ‘running out’ on Earth.

So our planet, and surrounding bodies, can keep us stocked with everything except coal, oil and gas. What’s the answer?

Nuclear power, solar power, wind power and tidal/river damming are the three main ways of making entirely CO₂-free power. But nuclear leaves behind waste that we’re not yet excellent at disposing of. Solar and Wind power are expensive and unreliable (weather is not consistent in most parts of the world for long enough). Tidal and non-tidal rivers have, in the majority of cases, already been dammed. In those places where this is still an option there is untold damage to the local habitats for local wildlife.

Now I’m an advocate of nuclear power. It is safe and we can store the nuclear waste. But there’s a better solution: 100% burning biomass.

The problem with burning wood is that it kicks out so much pollution. But President Bush is looking at methods of complete-burning wood in a new pollution-free power station. And in the meantime the US is converting fossil-fuel power stations to burn biomass.

The CO₂ cycle starts with trees (and other plants that photosynthesise). Trees absorb CO₂ (one part carbon to two parts oxygen) and release O₂ (the two parts of oxygen - it is two parts because oxygen is stable when it is bonded with another oxygen atom).

The tree then either dies and decomposes or is chopped down and is burnt.

Then one of two things happens:
1) The carbon is sequestered in the ground and, over an extremely long period of time and compression is converted into coal, oil or gas.
2) The carbon is released into the air to be absorbed by other trees.

Long ago there was more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and this was sequestered in the oil, gas and coal we are currently burning. This means we are creating a net growth in the amount of CO₂ ‘in circulation’.

By burning trees and replacing them in sustainable forests we are contributing nothing to the net amount of carbon in the atmosphere. This makes it green, reliable and cheap.

What we must do
We must plant massive fast-growing forests that can be used, when the power plants are built, as fuel. We must commission power stations that burn all the particulates released during normal burning of wood (though we shouldn’t be too concerned about releasing CO₂ as this is not previously sequestered carbon). Once we, in the West, have proven the technology we can export the process to China who, because of the number of power stations she has, will stand most to gain from this.

In the future
The ESA (European Space Agency) and NASA have already mooted the idea of mining asteroids for valuable metals. We may see a time when spacecraft are regularly travelling to relatively close extraterrestrial bodies to extract resources.

Whole tracts of land will be given over to growing forests to burn in modern, clean power stations.

Cars will be powered using power from one of several sources (probably not hydrogen in my opinion - electrically charged cars are far more likely).

The free power provided by trees will create a need for more land and land reclamation will be progressed further using lessons learned in New Orleans following Katrina as well as in the construction projects off the coast of Dubai.

[Technorati: China, Green, Environment, News and Politics, Politics, US, United States, Future, Futurology ]

This post is not covered by the Creative Commons Copyright - All Rights Reserved

Benjamin Franklin said

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

How very true.

Tony Blair offered to jail any media publisher who reports the news that Bush wanted to bomb Al Jazeera. This is a shocking, but not surprising attempt to misuse the Official Secrets Act to ensure that embarassing information is not reported. The Official Secrets Act should be used to protect Britain, her interests and her agents in the field - not to protect Blair’s friends or blushes.

In the spirit of blogging, Blair Watch are compiling a list of bloggers and others who will willing publish this information if it can be obtained. The list of bloggers who will risk jail.

The political left has long been the champion of rights, equality and social justice. They claim, through positive discrimination, idealism and draconian legislation, that they are the protectors of all who may be victims. A recent episode of Will & Grace showed the main characters voting not on political issues, but on ethnicity, religion or sexuality. I love Will & Grace and was glad to see that by pursuing this method of political decision making they ended up supporting a racist Jewish candidate and a nationalist and racist gay candidate.

And yet the left continually fails to defend those that it says it will. Galloway and Livingstone’s friendship of Islamic terrorists is a case in point. The Islamofacists of this world do not believe in defending the rights of Lesbians, Gays, Bi- and Trans-sexuals (LGBT), in fact they consider them worse infidels than the straight amongst us. The left’s arguments have long failed to live up to scrutiny, but now they’re denying the truth amongst their own, and in the Respect party.

Lesbian and Gay rights were deliberately omitted from the Respect manifesto and their alliance with right-wing Islamic groups is the cause.

Unfortunately it was not clear under Thatcher that the Conservative party was to become the party of individual freedom and choice. We now stand, as we should always have done, strongly in favour of individual rights. We can do this, because of our heritage, with the clear non-discriminatory benefit of not supporting positive discrimination which makes enemies on both sides of the argument. We can do this, too, from an ideological point of view. And we can do this from a moral point of view.

Thanks to J0nz for bringing the item to my attention and thanks to Lenin’s Tomb for his balanced views and details on the subject.

Some terrible news. Kellogg’s have recently used a new test on their Cornflakes to check for the residual gluten left over from the use of Malt Extract and have discovered that there is too much gluten left in them to pass the Codex Alimentarius rules on gluten content to qualify for gluten free.

In a nutshell this means that coeliacs must not eat Cornflakes from Kellogg’s, Asda, Co-op, Sainsbury’s, Somerfield or Waitrose.

Tests were also repeated, using the new test named the Mendez Method, on Rice Krispies and the Kellogg’s branded products passed. However as a precaution all other brands have been removed from CoeliacUK’s Food and Drink Directory and should not be eaten until further notice.

Complete list of products that must not be eaten
Kellogg’s Corn Flakes, Corn Flakes Banana Crunch, Crunchy Nut Corn Flakes, Crunchy Nut Red, Crunchy Nut Nutty, Frosties, Frosties Reduced Sugar, Frosties Cereal and Milk Bar, Choco Frosties, Cereal and Milk Bar
Asda Choco Flakes,Choco Snaps, Cornflakes, Crispy Nut Corn Flakes, Frosted Corn Flakes, Frosted Flakes, Organic Corn Flakes, Rice Snaps, Variety Pack
Co-op Choco Snaps, Crisp Rice, Frosted Flakes, Golden Nut Corn Flakes
Sainsbury’s Cornflakes, Frosted Flakes Breakfast Cereal, Honey Nut Corn Flakes
Somerfield Basics Corn Flakes, Choco Flakes, Choco Rice, Choco Teddies , Corn Flakes, Crisp Rice, Honey Nut Corn Flakes
Waitrose Corn Flakes, Frosted Flakes, Honey Nut Corn Flakes, Crisp Puffed Rice

This would be funny if it weren’t so scary… You’ll need sound though…

On the Streets of America 3

I cannot believe that a politician of a major party would say this. Truly ridiculous.

It’s nearly here, the new EU directive which should make shopping an altogether easier experience! From now on you’ll be able to tell at a glance if packaged food products contain wheat or gluten.

From Nov 25th, all sources of gluten will have to be labelled clearly. There is a new EU Directive which identifies 12 allergens in food (gluten is one of them) and which recommends that manufacturers label the food so that it is clear that the allergen is present.

Please note there will be some long shelf life products made before 25th November which will continue to be legal after this date.

[Technorati: Coeliac, EU, Gluten, Food labelling]

An excellent database of school photographs that must have taken a massive effort to create: click here

Blair is famous for a few quotes specifically:

• Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime
• I do not want war. I do not believe anyone in this House wants war. But disarmament peacefully can only happen with Saddam’s active co-operation (link)
• Education, education, education

Okay, maybe not the second but I had to point out that he lied about Iraq too…

But on the last point Blair has failed catastrophically. Education was damaged by Thatcher when she listened to the selection-obsessed and started the dismantling of the Grammar school system. Blair, however, continued it and made official the government’s disapproval of selection.

Some people may be uncomfortable with it, but it is true that everyone has a different academic capability. Whether we like it or not, some people must work harder to achieve what others can achieve with no effort. And when a more intelligent person is taught at the same time as someone who needs more assistance, both suffer. The intelligent person gets bored with the repetition and, in taking that into account, the teacher does not repeat enough for those who need more help to learn. It is far better to teach in groups of similar ability.

In some schools in the 1950s children were taught in streamed groups. These groups were based on overall ability so if you excelled in creative subjects but had more difficulty in mathematics you were placed in lower groups for both. This is crazy but is sometimes used as a parallel for the problem with the Grammar and Comprehensive system.

If at the 11+ a child is capable of obtaining an A-Level in English but has no chance of obtaining an A-Level in a science, what part of the 11+ should account for that? Should the 11+ be based on intelligence, effort or ability in specific subjects? These are not easy questions and they’re not questions that will likely be answered by consensus.

Regardless of the method chosen, however, we can be sure that there is a satisfactory way of sorting those who will be better suited to vocational or physical employment from those who will likely make a career in academia or using qualifications obtained from academia. This is the idea of the Grammar/Comprehensive system.

If a child is bright they can be educated in a grammar school where they will receive education better suited to their abilities. These children will not be disruptive because they won’t be sitting in lessons bored of the pace. Much bullying is performed by intelligent children who are not being engaged.

If a child is not exceptionally bright they can be educated at a Comprehensive school. Socialists worry that those in Comprehensives have somehow been labelled second-class citizens. For some reason it is assumed that if a child is not academically exceptional they are of no use to society. This is patently not the case. Today’s post grammar school era actually places greater emphasis on academic education. The government proposes 50% targets for the university attendance. In fact today’s shortage of plumbers, builders, electricians and many other jobs can be attributed to the government’s relative lack of focus. If the government tells children and parents that a 50% target has been set, the remaining 50% considers themselves failures.

A Comprehensive school, then, provides an institution to educate late-bloomers (who can then be taught at the grammar school if applicable) and most importantly children who are not suitable for academic education. These children can be given appropriate and relevant training without being made to feel that they are less capable than their grammar school peers.

Selection is humane and I welcome any comments on this subject particularly.

In John Major’s government, rebellion became a feature that has come to epitomise his period in leadership and led, eventually and with other factors, to the election loss in 1997.

Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990 - eleven years that were not perfect, by any measure, but brought about significant and necessary change. No-one likes change immediately, but many understand the need for it and, looking back, we can all see what tangible benefits she brought about for the UK. Towards the end of her leadership she lost her infamous ability to make decisions that may have seemed unpopular but which turned out okay. That ability deserted her and the Single European Act and the Poll Tax were just a couple of her awful decisions.

Tony Blair has been Prime Minister since the 1997 election which can be described, without exaggeration, as a landslide. Thatcher’s policies are very obviously Blair’s inspiration and his meglomania also caused him to want to beat her term as leader. Eleven years, he thinks, will solidify him as a Prime Minister that will be remembered. Gordon Brown, then, cannot expect Blair to relinquish power before 2008. And Labour MPs are beginning to look like they won’t allow an entirely smooth hand-over of power from Blair to Brown…

Brown will have much more chance of becoming leader if Blair relinquishes power sooner rather than later. And maybe 2008 will be too late for him. The time from the new leader’s inaugoration until the next election will also be decisive for his chances of winning an election. Many Conservatives, myself included, think that the longer Brown is in power, the more likely it is that he will not be re-elected.

So, on one hand there is a dichotomatic problem for Labour that is growing more, and less, serious as time passes. Blair cannot have a legacy of longevity unless he hangs on until 2008. 2008 may be too late for Brown to be assured a smooth inheritance.

And on the other hand, Brown wants and thinks he deserves, to become Prime Minister. But he also does not want to be the first sitting Labour Prime Minister to be defeated since 1979. He wants the hand-over to be soon to protect him from Alan Milburn, but he wants it to be reasonably close to the next election so that he does not break the country before then.

In Major’s government there were 22 rebels on Maastricht; in Blair’s third term there were 49 over the 90 day detention aspect of the government’s terrorism bill. Of those 49, 14 were elected for the first time in May 2005! Blair has managed to lose the support of people who, six months before, stood for election under his leadership.

So Blair has more rebels than Major had and he doesn’t have the support of the party’s newest intake. What of the future for him? Will Blair’s endorsement of Brown damage Brown’s chances when the time comes? Many commentators have taken different amounts from this rebellion. One thing is for sure, in the long-term this is good for David Cameron or David Davis, is good for the Conservative Party and, most importantly, is good for the UK.

As a Conservative I hope Brown does not become Prime Minister at all. If he must I hope he loses public support (more than Labour’s low percentage of the vote in May did already). 3% is not too much for the Tories to overturn and Blair’s charisma could account for a massive amount of their vote.

But as an Englishman I hope that the economy does not suffer with Blair’s departure. Brown has done serious damage as Chancellor but as an unfettered (by Blair) Prime Minister we may be heading for genuine disaster.