News, views and booze

Hello again all you good people who are reading my blog. As you will have seen, I have recently taken the liberty of introducing a web counter on the front page of this blog to show how much people traffic has passed through this blog and is reading my literary masterpieces. The early signs are certainly encouraging.


Well, once again as there have been quite a few different things going on in the world and lots of talking points over the news, I thought I would split my latest blog up into another one of those kind of newswrap pieces. I hope that you find this a good read.

1. Royal Mail paying price for not delivering
One of the big stories of the past few days has been the uncertain future facing Royal Mail. The UK's premier postal delivery service is losing revenue and its Chief Executive Adam Crozier has outlined plans for the company to consider selling off or contracting out parts of its service in order to make the presently Government owned service a more viable service that can generate income and ensure its short term future. The Government is apparently supportive of these measures and is looking to undertake a full review of Royal Mail's future feasibility. However, these proposals have met with an angry response from the shop floor owing to the strong likelihood of redundancies needing to be made in order to reconfigure the service.

I suppose it is akin to turkeys voting for Christmas and so it is no surprise that those workers who particularly feel their jobs are threatened are the most scathing of these proposals. And the strong opposition from the Communication Workers' Union is equally of little surprise because of the left wing militant tendencies of some of the big movers and shakers in the union, where privatisation is still seen as a dirty word, a word associated with Margaret Thatcher and with Conservative policy.

But, as someone who certainly doesn't profess to have many views that are allied with Conservative policy, isn't it about time people woke up and smelt the coffee so far as privatisation is concerned? Why is Government ownership of business seen as a guarantee that a service will be run better? This is a Government that now part owns a bank that allowed its head honcho to award himself a massive bonus just last week and which said it was powerless to prevent Northern Rock from giving its staff widespread bonuses, despite the fact that it now pretty much owns it. And let's remember some of the other great nationalised businesses of this fine country. British Steel, British Coal, British Leyland. Hmm, not exactly the best run businesses this country has ever seen.

I suppose the cynics believe that privatisation of businesses is responsible for every Capitalist related failing that afflicts the world right now. The bonus culture, share dividends, inflated directorial salaries, a lack of competition. Yet, whatever business you are in, the primary goal is to make a profit, regardless of whether that profit is being reinvested in improving services for the greater good of the community, or whether that profit is being invested to improve the quality of the Managing Director's golf handicap. Royal Mail clearly has been losing revenue and this in turn has made it a less profitable business, which suggests those in the positions of power within Government charged with the responsibility of making Royal Mail serve its public while remaining financially viable have somehow not been delivering. That suggests to me that if a private business with the requisite skills and resources can come on board and support Royal Mail, it would make sound business sense to entertain the idea.

The Government should look at the models in other deregulated markets to see that far from being a ghastly notion, privatising parts of Royal Mail might actually provide the public with a greater choice and also a better service. Take the telecommunications sector. Since BT was privatised, it has encouraged other providers to enter the telephone market, particularly in terms of providing the best call tariff. The same is true in utilities where admittedly you have a supply, a gas pipe which is owned and maintained by one body, but where the service differentiation is in the augmented product and in terms of the pricing. The local electricity can now be your gas supplier and vice versa. But it allows the consumer to shop around for the best deal and make an informed choice on who the right supplier for them is. That surely is a good thing, right?

Royal Mail has perhaps got itself in the position it is in because of complacency. It has taken its eye off the ball thinking it has the monopoly on the delivery of mail in this country. Clearly, however, that is not the full picture. People are not sending the same volume of mail any more. This can be explained by people's fast paced lives and the ease of technology to communicate with old friends. Why send a letter when you can send a Facebook message or an e-mail? Why send your cousin a birthday card when you can send her an animated e-card or can log in to Moonpig to send the card for you? People's lifestyles are changing and people have more confidence and savvy to use online alternatives where communication is concerned and they have less time to send handwritten correspondence in the post.

The same is true within business. Whereas in years gone by, both consumers and businesses would have to rely on snail mail to pay their suppliers for their electricity, phone bill and rent, in this day and age comparatively few transactions are made by sending a cheque in the post when there are more instant payment methods available such as bank transfers, direct debits, Internet banking and PayPal. Royal Mail has not helped itself with some its absurd fees either. The hairbrain idea a couple of years ago to start charging by height of envelopes as well as the weight has confused people and led to more items going astray because of insufficient postage being applied. Where I work, we recently received a card from Royal Mail saying that they were retaining an item because the sender had paid insufficient postage. The collection price was £1.06, of which six pence related to the underpayment and the remaining £1 was a handling fee for the incredible hardship created by retaining an item of post in a filing cabinet behind the counter at the local sorting office. Was this all necessary given that the sender probably only made the mistake of putting a normal first class stamp on a large envelope?

Royal Mail needs to be more accessible and more in tune with the changing demands of its public. If that means that a regime change is required and that it needs to be run like a commercial business and be accountable like a commercial business, then so be it. The brand name should ensure it retains a certain amount of loyalty, but people have got to get over the whole self-protection thing and the party politics and realise that if they want a thriving postal service designed to meet the needs of people in the 21st century, it needs to be run by people that understand the market and the nuances of business. People might not like the notion of getting into bed with corporate fat cats, but without the right entrepreneurial advice, the plight of Royal Mail will only deteriorate if it always remains in Government hands.

2. Pakistan must not be excluded
It was terrible to learn of the atrocities in Lahore earlier this week where six people were killed in what appeared to be an attempt to kill the entire Sri Lankan cricket team. Fortunately, the Sri Lankan players and officials suffered only comparatively minor injuries, although the trauma of the events in Lahore will surely scar them for the rest of their lives.

Obviously, my first thoughts on hearing this news was to sympathise with those who had loved ones who lost their lives in this incident and to sympathise with the Sri Lankan players and officials caught in the crossfire. The former England batsman Chris Broad who was on one of the coaches being fired at and who was in Pakistan in his capacity as an ICC match referee, deserves special commendation for putting himself in the firing line in order to save the life of a colleague who had been wounded. Broad also merits praise for his scathing criticism of the security arrangements in place and for questioning whether there was any "inside knowledge" on the part of the police or security officials.

Broad's comments nonetheless attracted criticism from those in a position of power in Pakistan. Sadly, this did not surprise me and this is part of the problem. Pakistan has long seen itself as a victim and being got at and it has, at times, been vindicated in feeling that way. Nonetheless, just as it was noticeable in the aftermath of their former coach Bob Woolmer's untimely death at the Cricket World Cup in the Caribbean 2 years ago that Pakistani officials were completely dismissive at any thought of foul play in his death, once again a problem has occurred which has seen the country go on the defensive. An investigation later concluded that Woolmer had died of natural causes, with a heart attack seeming to be the most likely cause of death. But there will always be that element of suspicion with his death, however much there are those who completely dismiss the idea.

I do not pretend to know the history of Pakistan's fraught relationship with its neighbour India or the reasons for its volatile political landscape. However, one thing I do know is that it is a very religious country, with one overriding religion holding supreme, Islam. As is the case with other religions, there are a minority of people whose beliefs border on the fanatical and who see any slight on their faith as one that deserves retribution. I would like to reiterate, however, that I know this is the case in other religions and cults. One only has to look at some of the far right Christian groups that exist in the United States to realise this is a problem not confined to Islam, but which is confined to religious intolerance or bigotry.

One of the theories I heard that was suggested as a motive for why the perpetrators of this attack were targeting the Sri Lankan cricket team was that one of the Sri Lankan players participating in the match was known to have given up his Muslim faith to become a Buddhist and this may have been seen by a religious fanatic as the worst kind of traitorship and an offence of high treason. This theory may or may not have substance but it is certainly worth investigating.

What makes the theory plausible for me was that I was watching a programme on TV earlier this week about Muslims who had felt ostracised within the Muslim community because of their homosexuality. As is true in the teachings of other religions, Islam's followers see homosexuality as grossly wrong and in some cases, the more devout fanatics would wish for those engaging in homosexual activity to either be subjected to violence or incarcerated. The programme I watched on this subject was interesting, if somewhat disturbing viewing and it only served to prove to me why I am glad that religious faith does not underpin any facet of the way I lead my life. But that's just a personal preference.

Back to the subject in hand though and I do sympathise with the followers of Pakistani cricket. For nearly 20 years, Pakistan's cricket team have been one of the most mercurial and captivating in the world game. On their day they have been capable of defeating anybody but on another have been adept at shooting themselves in the foot. One thing is for sure though, cricket without Pakistan playing would be a duller place and the likes of Wasim Akram, Mushtaq Ahmed and Saeed Anwar to name just three have provided great entertainment in my time as a cricket follower.

In the here and now, it is difficult to see how Pakistan can remain at the game's top table with the prospect of future matches being played in Pakistan looking remote for a good while yet. Australia and South Africa had long felt that a visit to Pakistan was too risky and this past week has only shown that they were vindicated all along. Pakistan's followers will point to the hypocrisy of teams being prepared to travel to India, just as England did after the Mumbai bombings last autumn. But even the visions of Indian Rupees might consider a rethink now, because up until now cricketers would not have believed they were legitimate targets for terrorist splinter groups.

Nonetheless, I hope that the ICC can do their best to continue to accommodate Pakistan in international cricket. In the short term, the only way to do this will be to ask Pakistan to play matches at a neutral venue and there are those that say that the Pakistan public's interest will diminish if they do not get to see their team in the flesh. There does not appear to be a realistic alternative though in the short term and it would be no bad thing if Pakistan were allowed to play some of their test matches in England in the interim period. There are thriving Asian communities in England and although Norman Tebbit might not approve, the visit of Pakistani cricketers to Headingley or Edgbaston could get Asian kids hooked on the game for life. Let's hope that some good can come out of this very sorry situation.

3. Drinking from the wrong glass
It has been well documented this week that in Scotland, plans are afoot for an initiative to be introduced in Glasgow to crack down on alcohol fuelled anti-social behaviour and debauchery on the city's streets. These plans particularly consist of the establishment of a minimum price of selected alcoholic products in pubs, particularly beer, as a deterrent against unruly, alcohol related incidents. I can imagine that Rab C Nesbitt would be outraged, although I think the string vested one has given up the booze these days anyway.

Only a couple of months ago, there was also some discussion about getting Wetherspoons to increase the minimum prices of beer in its establishment, as they have become renowned as the bargain bucket of beer sales and therefore people could get trolleyed on their premises. The flaw in this school of thought is that Wetherspoons pubs are completely devoid of atmosphere and so after a couple of drinks, even the most prudent drinkers would move on and pay a bit more money just for a bit of life.

For my money, people completely miss the point when it comes to clamping down on young drinkers. From what I can see, the authorities are trying to hike up the price of beer in pubs to resolve the problem. This won't work because young drinkers don't drink Old Speckled Hen or Worthingtons. They tend to get into drinking alcohol by drinking Alco Pops or drinking cheap and nasty shots off the top shelf of the pub bar. OK, they will drink beer and lager eventually, but normally people's first experience of sampling beer or lager won't be in the pub, it will be out of a can at some teenage party or having a sip on their parents' instruction at a family wedding.

The price of beer in many pubs is already extortionate. It does not seem that many years ago when I could go into a pub and order a pint of Guinness for £2 or £2.20. Six or seven years on from those happy days, invariably a pint of the black stuff will normally fetch in the region of £3.20 to £3.50 now. I expect one day the Irish theme bars will add a surcharge if the barman can draw a shamrock in the head of the stout after it has been left to settle. Surely introducing a minimum pricing strategy is only going to turn more people away from pubs at a time when the economic climate is seeing pubs particularly in rural areas close. More people are drinking at home because of the price and accessibility of supermarket beer which is convenient with their fast moving lives.

And this is the thing. If young drinkers can't afford to go to the pub, they will buy more and more from the supermarket where the price is cheaper but the quality is often worse. 24 cans of Stella from a supermarket can be bought at special offer prices but the downside is that these cans contain more gas than the periodic table. And then there's the cheap and nasty bottles of Belgian and Dutch beer that can be bought for bargain bucket prices. So what happens is that people start drinking earlier, but they do it at home before eventually hitting the town, by which time they are already on their way to being plastered.

So instead of penalising drinkers who drink responsibly in pubs, the more sensible solution to the pitfalls of the drinking culture in the UK would be to crack down on the sale of alcohol in supermarkets. Revoke the licences of any supermarket found to serve underage customers with alcohol and impose restrictions on the special offers on the gassy cat urine that passes as canned lager in supermarkets would be a better strategy. Oh, and get back to the root of the problem, Alcopops. This is alcohol which is essentially targeting underage drinkers. How many adults drink them? Therefore, these items should either be banned altogether or they should have a minimum price. I think you would see a definite upturn in responsible drinking if these two strategies were adopted.


That's my lot for tonight. Come back at the weekend when I'll be talking about the BBC, education and Facebook. That should be a blast.