Morts Musings

This latest conference season seems, to my eye, to have been influenced somewhat by American ways of doing politics, and in particular by Obama’s campaign to become president.
For a start there’s been a great deal of talk about “change”, not that I’m necessarily opposed to some serious changes, there is a lot that needs fixing with this country’s political, and electoral, systems.
It’s clear that I’m not the only one to think that change is needed, apart from the feel-good resonance this message might have with Obama’s aspirational speeches, I think that it’s a message which many of the UK population want to believe in, after all things seem pretty messed up at the moment so the promise of something different is bound to be attractive! The list of things which look broken is pretty stark: MP’s abusing the trust placed in them by the electorate, fiddling their expenses & breaking the rules which they expect us to live by, but rarely seeming to take responsibility, or resigning, when they do get caught; Putting the interests of big business before those of the electorate, as most clearly demonstrated by the economic crisis last year; Erosion of our civil liberties, in the “fight against terror”; Wasting resources on PFI & other projects which hand tax payer money over to big business, while our doctors, nurses & armed forces go short of funding which would allow them to perform their jobs properly; The list seems to go on and on. So, yes, change is needed.
The question really is, for all the fine words, from both sides, how much of the talk is pre-electoral rhetoric, which will be quietly forgotten once whoever wins the next election is safely entrenched in No 10? and how much of it is likely to amount to real substance?

I’m an unrepentant cynic so I tend to lean on the side that most of the talk is just that. On one side you’ve got Brown who’s track record is far from inspiring, while on the other you have Cameron, who models himself a little too closely on the Blair style of politics for my liking, in the sense that he’s clearly trying to be everything for everyone; a trick which Blair managed to pull off in ‘97, but, just like Blair, Cameron can’t possibly be all things for all people, so the question is, is he lying to his core voters, as Blair did when he sold out socialism to serve that all important electoral trophy, “Middle England”, or is our mate Dave going to revert to classic Tory form when/if he gets into power?

It’s hard to buy in to Dave and George’s “we’re all in this together” rhetoric when they’re both millionaires, from privileged backgrounds, who’ve never done a decent days work in their lives, and really, even if they tried, can’t have a proper appreciation for how hard the recent recesssion has been for the vast majority of hard working Brits; Sorry davey boy, but for all that M&S dresses are a solid British middle classed brand, getting your missus to parade around conference in one isn’t convincing anyone that you’re just another hard pressed Brit; You’re a spoilt toff with no idea what it’s like to live in the real world, and you’re not fooling anyone!
On the other hand though Gordan has a pretty shocking track record too. I feel for the man slightly in the sense that Blair stiched him right up with promises of taking over the leadership when he was done, but only handing over the reins once things were well and truly in decline; Kinda like Dr Frankinstein telling Igor that he could have the castle once the baying, pitchfork armed mob, was already at the front gates. Still, Brown’s period as PM hasn’t exactly been inspirational, he gives the impression of being a slightly awkward, but principled chap, who wants what’s best for all of us, but in this age of spin one has to look at actions more than words, and if one does Brown’s term in office doesn’t look good. Abandoning good policies to kow-tow to media driven public opinion, and allowing ministers who have clearly screwed up to keep their jobs, when the honourable thing to do would be for them to resign, doesn’t exactly reinforce the quiet but principled image.

In short this country seems to face only bad choices at the next election; Both parties are promising that they have what it takes, but it’s hard to believe in Labour, given their track record, & some of the policies which Osbourne unveiled as the cure to our economic woes seem very unpalatable to me; It’s easy for him to talk about raising the retirement age when, as a millionaire, it’s something which is never going to effect him greatly, and it’s hardly surprising that he’s all in favour of scrapping 50% income tax for top earners; It all sounds a little too much like the traditional Tory values of looking after the well off at the expense of the rest of the population.

Time will tell of course, but right now I’m not expecting much from whoever wins the next election- any party who’s capable of winning under the current system just doesn’t have that great an incentive to change things too much, and, in essence, I believe that to a large extent that’s the crux of this country’s current political woes.

OK, so on the face of it this piece might seem a little hypocritical after my last, but actually I think it’s a good example of the sort of thing which consumers should be protected from. In this case, bizarrely, it was sofas which proved to be a source of hidden danger.

This piece from the BBC looks at a long running legal case over the use of the fungicide dimethyl fumarate on leather sofas made by a number of firms in China, & sold by UK retailers, including big names like, Land of Leather, Walmsleys and Argos. The sofas were apparently treated with the chemical to stop them developing mould while in transport & storage, however many people who bought the affected sofas developed painful skin rashes, as well as chest and eye problems in some cases. The chemical has now been banned by the EU, and the big name retailers who sold the sofas were all quite prompt when it came to issuing recalls & offering refunds.

Anyway, it seems that it’s pretty much old news now, and that those affected have received reparation, but after a couple of comments on my last piece* I wanted to make it clear that I’m not a completely heartless git. I do firmly believe that private companies can’t be allowed to operate under a completely lassiez faire system; The prime motive of business is to make profit, & history has shown countless times that, when unregulated, some businesses will put the bottom line before the quality, or safety, of their goods. Having said that, as an utter cynic, I think any consumer who doesn’t exercise the caveat emptor spirit is probably a little foolish.

In anycase this is the sort of hidden danger which a consumer can’t reasonably be expected to anticipate by exercising common sense, and which they should be protected from. Ok, so this is a pretty clear cut case, people looking to buy quality sofas have a reasonable right to expect that they shouldn’t be laced with unpleasant toxins. Whereas warnings about not letting heavy furniture fall on children should be pretty redundant, since, to my mind it’s rather obvious advice. Obviously there are grey areas inbetween these two examples, & I suppose those are where the slippery slope towards an over-protective nanny state starts.

Hopefully, this sets the record straight on the view I’m expressing, i.e. that people should be expected (& given the freedom) to exercise personal responsibility where possible, not, that we should live in an unregulated world where unethical manufacturers can endanger the lives of consumers if it means cutting production costs.

*No, I didn’t publish them, I’m fine with people criticising my views, but I’m not going to publish streams of profanity, or waste my time editing such comments to make them work place friendly.

I want to start this piece by making it absolutely clear that it’s an unashamed rant about the way the world appears to be moving towards a state where the public expect to be told any time they interact with anything which might be even slightly dangerous, even when it should be perfectly evident that exercising some common sense might be in order.

The tendancy for governments to bombard us with more and more safety legislation every year is an insidious creep towards a situation where everybody is assumed to be a moron who should be wrapped in cotton wool for their own safety. Maybe this is a good thing for the “hard of thinking”, the proportion of society who really do need to be protected from themselves, but I firmly believe that, by taking a “one size fits all” approach to looking after these poor unfortunate souls, govts are encouraging everyone to be more cretinous and less likely to think for themselves in situations where some judgement might be advisable; Not to mention that blanket legislation which caters to the lowest common denominator curtails the freedoms of everybody else.

I’m sure the campaigners who get behind these causes do so with the best of intentions. Often I believe it’s because the “danger” which they seek to protect everybody from has effected their lives in some traumatic way, and that’s almost part of the problem; Nobody wants to be the one to tell these poor misguided souls that they’re over-reacting, perfectly understandable if the campaigner in question has lost a relative, but really somebody should, rather than media, and politicians, jumping on the band wagon for the sake of sales, or to gain a few points in the polls.

Someone really should be able to tell these people that sometimes bad stuff happens, and it’s just bad luck, that no-one deserves to be sued as a consequence, & no laws need to be drawn up to protect others from themselves, or cruel twists of fate, especially if those laws would curtail the freedoms of others who are willing to take personal responsibility & aren’t hurting anyone else.

Ok, so you’ve had the rant now but what was it that set me off? Actually it was this piece from an US news site. It details moves in New Jersey to introduce laws which would require manufacturers, of TVs, and furniture, over a certain size, to provide warnings about the potential dangers to children of such heavy objects falling on them, & provide advice about ways to prevent such accidents.

From the article:

The proposed rules would apply to dressers, bookcases, bureaus, armoires or similar furniture that is 42 inches or more in height and designed to store, display, or otherwise place items; televisions with display screens that are 25 inches or more; and all television stands.

Furniture can Kill! No really, it can!

That’s right apparently furniture is a hidden menace lurking in our homes! All this time you thought it was useful stuff you kept around to store things on, or in, but in reality it’s a killer, just waiting to strike!

Don’t get me wrong I don’t intend to make light of anybody dying, let alone children, but we, as a species, have survived around heavy objects for millenia without anyone needing to legislate for our own protection; Why do we suddenly need laws to protect us, & why should a manufacturer be responsible if a consumer lacks the common sense to realise that heavy stuff is dangerous if it falls on you?!? By the logic of this legislation everything we ever buy should be plastered in warnings, just on the off chance that someone might use it in some unintended but potentially lethal manner! What? you mean it’s a bad idea to insert TVs into random bodily orifaces?
I mean, really, come on, where does it all stop?

It wouldn’t be so bad but, honestly, how many people actually read the manuals for their new TVs anyway? This move seems to be purely about protecting manufacturers from the asininely litigious, a section of humanity who thoroughly deserve to be told to shut up & go away, if not locked up for wasting everyone elses time!

Anyway, you’ve been warned, so next time you’re thinking about buying furniture or a new digital TV consider the dangers it poses to others around you, especially if you have small children! Anyway I’m off to post a warning in the article I hosted about sideboards, a couple of months back, before some litigious numpty tries to sue me for not pointing out the incredibly obvious!

Bangladesh has only existed as an independent country since 1971. Before that it was part of Pakistan, & was known as East Pakistan, during the period between India’s partition and achieving it’s own independence.
In terms of it’s geography, the majority of Bangladesh occupies a low lying basin which contains the Ganges Delta; a confluence of the Ganges, Brahmaputra & Meghna Rivers. As such the majority of the country is very low lying, with the majority of the land being less than 5m above sea level. Historically this has lead to Bangladesh being very prone to flooding; It is both vulnerable to storm surges from Cyclones, and to flooding caused by the monsoons swelling the country’s great rivers, and, between these two factors, flooding is a reality which many Bangldeshis have to cope with annually.

Although there’s been a lot of talk in the news about the this year’s late monsoons, and the consequences this will have for India’s agricultural sector, it’s still looking like Bangladesh is going to be subject to it’s normal annual flooding over the next few months.
Last week I caught this video report from the BBC, part of a series which highlights the plight of Bangladesh’s poor as they prepare for the annual deluge. It not only gives some insight into the terrible conditions which these people have to endure as part of their day-to-day lives, but also highlighted, for me, how vulnerable the residents of Bangladesh are to the effects of global warming; With ~50% of the country lying at 3m above sea level, or less, it’s easy to see how even a modest rise in sea levels would render much of the country uninhabitable. This would be a disaster for any nation, but with Bangladesh being a relatively poor nation, yet at the same time being the world’s 7th most populous (~150 million people), it’s quite clear that it’s people stand to suffer more than most if climate change predictions are correct.

As the BBC report made me realise, it’s people who live in these marginal environments who are going to be the first to really feel the impact of climate change, and some of those interviewed in the series are claiming that they are already seeing a difference in the pattern, and severity, of the annual flooding!
Debates about computer models, and statistics, thrown back and forth between the pro- & anti- anthropogenic climate change camps are all very well, and honest discussion of the facts we have is absolutely a necessity, but it seems somewhat asinine to be continuing the debate about whether there is a problem when people on the ground are already observing a change. Surely now is the time to start taking serious action on the issue of climate change, before more countries start to suffer catastrophic, way of life changing, weather patterns!

In the mean time, spare a thought for the poor of Bangladesh who, over the next couple of months, are going to be dealing with the floods; Think about that next time you’re cursing the wet British summer, by comparison we have it easy… for the moment!
The BBC report also mentioned the work which Oxfam, amongst other charities, are doing to help preparations for this years Bangladesh Floods, so if you can afford to spare more than just a thought for Bangladesh’s poor take a look at Oxfam’s campaign page to see how you can get involved!

According to this BBC article the Chancellor has come out and announced that the UK’s banking regulation system isn’t to blame for the massive failures by the banking industry which lead to the credit crunch.
OK, I get his point that the extraordinary mix of greed and incompetence which the bosses of Britain’s banks exhibited is certainly the primary cause of our current economic woes, but to claim that there was no regulatory failure, when the regulator’s job is to stop the banks getting too greedy and/or incompetent is, to my mind, utterly asinine!
It’s not like we need any more proof that this Govt is a complete waste of space, there’s quite a catelogue of evidence been built up over the last 12 years, but this move frankly takes the biscuit!
What happened to the concept of taking responsibility for one’s actions? The Govt are all too keen to tell us, the people, that we have to be a more responsible society; Well, how about they set an example for the country, fricking hypocrits! Yes, I’m quite cross!

Really, how Darling can be so brazen as to say that there’s been no regulatory failure is totally beyond me, the concept just defies common sense! Either Darling is an utter moron, lacking even the most rudimentary reasoning skills, or, he’s confident that the electorate will forget this epic show of spinelessness by the time it comes round to the elections!

I’ve said it before but the Govt should have dealt far more strongly with the banks at the point when the banks came crawling for a bail out. Sadly though, they seemed to be quite happy to bend over (on the tax payers behalf) and take it from the banks, and now, with this latest announcement, have pretty much given a green flag for the banks to do this all over again, at some point in the future.

Afterall, why shouldn’t they? It’s not like they’ve come out of this farce too badly off, and now that they’re not even going to be watched more closely in future, what’s to stop them?