Times are a changing

Evening folks.

Well, another week has flashed by and today sees the conclusion to another monumental mission. No, Gordon Brown has not left office yet, but it is the final of The Apprentice series 5 tonight. Who will be rewarded with a £100,000 a year salary and a permanent seat in Sir Alan, soon to be Lord Sugar's empire? By the way, doesn't the boss's new title make him sound like he should be a character in a Roald Dahl book? My prediction on a previous blog that Debra would go all the way has gone slightly awry but to my mind at least, the best two candidates over the whole series will be contesting the final.

Yasmina did not know the difference between a gross and net profit, so probably best that she doesn't end up doing Sugar's accounts! However, she has shown herself to be a determined candidate who is strong on the hard sell and not someone to be crossed. By contrast, Kate is less maverick than Yasmina and tends to go more by the book. I do not for one second believe she is the robot that the press and Sir Alan's advisors would make you believe. She might have the appearance of the dizzy blonde but I think there is a quiet determination to succeed inside and whereas Yasmina's skills lie in her hard selling, direct approach, Kate has a softer set of selling and people skills and she has shown herself to be a consumate presenter. It's going to be a close run thing and by the time you see this blog, the result will probably be known. But I'm predicting Yasmina to edge it by the slightest of slight margins, as Sugar tends to like someone who has a bit of maverick about them.

Well, there are those that think many of The Apprentice candidates are not fit enough to run a railway. Speaking of which, let's proceed to the first topic of this blog.

1. Changing the concept of time
As a regular commuter on one of the busiest rail passenger routes in the country, I am well used to the common problems that come with the territory. Finding a seat on a rush hour train is always a challenge, especially when you can guarantee that in every carriage there will be at least one selfish passenger who is apparently oblivious to the plight of the other passengers on the train. So while you are squashed like sardines in the standing room area with fold-up bicycles and each other for company, at least the rucksacks of the world can travel in comfort with a seat to themselves, despite the fact that there is a luggage rack especially for them.

As if the people aren't bad enough, the trains themselves are often awful to travel on, especially if like me, you have the misfortune of usually travelling on First Capital Connect. For those that are not familiar with First Capital, it would be fair to say that they are the Ryanair of the commuter train sector, with a very definite no-frills policy. Their trains invariably are so old that they would probably qualify for a Saga holiday. Due to their age and the lack of maintenance staff, the trains are usually to be found in a dirty and odious state. Draughts are another common problem. Not people playing the board game you will understand, although the phenomenon certainly leaves commuters in a huff. This is due to the windows often not closing properly, which results in not just a draught when you go through a tunnel but the accompanying hazards of a nasty din and a less than pleasant smell.

If you want to get between the south coast and the capital in a reasonable time, then First Capital is not the service for you. I have not given them my own private epithet of Slow Capital Connect for no good reason. If you get on a Brighton to Bedford service, the train will stop at near enough every station on its route between Brighton and East Croydon. I previously did not realise anyone with a pulse inhabited Wivelsfield or Balcombe! First Capital also suffers for being the least priority carrier on the line. Therefore, if there are train delays between London and Brighton, which is near enough every night, then people catching the First Capital trains will be the ones who ultimately suffer, as the Southern trains are allowed to move on ahead.

So I was rather intrigued and somewhat nonplussed by the news this week that train reliability and punctuality is at an all time high. According to the statistics that have been released, ninety per cent of long train journeys in this country are on time. Apparently, journeys that are classified as short journeys have a higher percentage in the punctuality stakes. If, like me, you found yourself thinking that these statistics could not be plausible, well it would seem that they are. However, it has meant a whole re-defining of the English language in order for the plausibility to be effective.

It was Mark Twain I think who came up with the quote about lies, damned lies and statistics. I wonder what the creator of Tom Sawyer would have to say about these statistics, because they would confirm his point. According to the report, being on time means that trains are no more than five minutes late on a short distance journey, let's say from Brighton to Gatwick Airport, and no more than ten minutes late on a long distance journey, let's say London Euston to Manchester Piccadilly. Now you begin to see how these statistics have been manipulated in order to produce the desired results for the people in power.

Surely there is no grey area in measuring being on time? On time means on time. Therefore, if your train from Brighton is scheduled to arrive at Gatwick Airport at 6:30 and it gets there at 6:34, it is late. I imagine that if the passenger alighted the train at that very destination, hopped on the travelator to the airport departures hall to go and check in only to find that they were late, there would be far less leniency shown for their late arrival. If you or I turned up to work four minutes late every morning, we would soon find ourselves up before the beak and if you turned up four minutes late to school every morning, you would soon find yourself in detention. It does not send out a good message to other walks of life if arriving five minutes after the scheduled ETA is considered to be acceptable.

Rather than trying to spin a yarn by redefining the parameters of time, it would be more effective if those overseeing the running of the transport infrastructure in this country could look at ways in which the railways could be run more efficiently, in order to encourage people away from using their cars for their journeys to work. I think that there are some drivers out there that would consider travelling by rail to work to avoid the daily road rage on the M23 or M25, but who are preturbed by the lack of reliability on public transport. For public transport to ever be a meaningful alternative to the car, it has to be both reliable and flexible to the passenger's needs. Right now, the trains all too often fail on both levels.

There is only a finite amount of track that is carrying a vast number of trains across the network on seven days a week. This causes several problems, it means that track maintenance is frequently needed, sometimes as a matter of emergency and this results in delays to trains. On an everyday basis, the sheer volume of trains on the track can automatically cause delays and especially if one train is running late, it means that an orderly queue of trains will form behind it, all of which will end up getting to their destination late as well.

There are those that blame these problems on the privatisation of the rail service which resulted in separate operators running the trains and another operator appointed to maintain the tracks. While I think that some carriers are more efficient than others, I do not think that the faults of the railway lie with its privatisation. In fact, I think you can trace the seeds of the malaise further back to a time when the railway was completely in the hands of Government control.

Both my parents spent the early parts of their working lives working in the railway industry and from what they told me, the impact of the Beeching Report in the early 1960s was what led the railways towards some of the recurring problems that it now faces. I did not really appreciate what they had said until I found myself watching the excellent BBC2 series fronted by Ian Hislop that looked at the closure of some of the routes in the aftermath of the Beeching Report and the impact that these closures had on their community. The closures of certain lines were made on the basis of profitability, an inevitable decision maybe, but one which you would normally expect from where a model of privatisation exists, which back in 1963 it did not.

In times of economic strife, it is unlikely to expect the Government of the day to invest money into the improvement of the transport infrastructure, especially in terms of developing new track. If, as expected, the Conservatives are in power by around this time next year, then I would expect their policies to be more focused around budget cuts to public services and so I would not expect transport to be any different.

However, with an Olympics in the capital just three years away, a need for a reliable and punctual transport infrastructure running from in and out of the capital is going to be heightened and it would help if the transport network could ensure that passengers in the home counties do not need to travel to the capital first and then change in order to get somewhere else in the home counties. For someone living in Sussex, but wanting to travel to most parts of Kent for example, travelling to a London station and then changing is usually a pre-requisite. The Government in power in twelve months time should at least explore the feasibility of introducing three new lines in Southern England to provide some alternative routes to the congested ones inside the capital.

That way, passengers may start to feel that they are getting better value for money on the often extortionate rail fares and can arrive on time by anyone's standards, not only by definition of a man in a charcoal suit, eating hob-nobs in the Transport Office.

2. Always a frown with Gordon Brown
Continuing the musical theme aluded to by the title to this blog and this sub-heading, time seemingly is running out for Gordon Brown's premiership if the events of the last week are anything to go by. Just as they say that Assistant Managers are not always cut out to be good Managers in football, there is also previous precedent to back up the argument that successful Chancellors of the Exchequer do not make for good Prime Ministers. The very notion that Brown was a successful Chancellor would appear to be subject to conjecture these days given the ramshackle state that the economy now finds itself in, but until recently, Brown's stock from his ten years in charge of the Treasury was at a high level.

The past week has seen a chain of events that even Brown could not have totally foreseen, even allowing for the ongoing furore resulting from the Daily Telegraph's expenses expose, which let's not forget, has not only named and shamed Labour politicians but members of the house from rival parties as well. The resignation of several ministers over three days during the week were not made necessarily as noises of dissatisfaction towards Gordon Brown and his ability to lead their party into an election, but more to do with the protecting of self-interest. The public anger that manifested itself in the aftermath of the expenses scandal breaking was for the very reason that it was transparent that MPs had put their own interests ahead of the constituents they were serving, and yet, still now it would seem that there are so many of Westminster's least wanted that are looking after number one first, second and third.

The resignations of Jacqui Smith and Hazel Blears were to be expected. Neither politician is popular with the public due to their part in the expenses scandal. Smith also has attracted criticism from libertarians for her role as Home Secretary in putting in place the plans to introduce identity cards. In Blears's case, her lack of popularity with the public has been more due to her just presenting herself as a pretty ghastly human being. If I was a betting man, I would make her favourite to have her effigy feature in the Lewes Bonfire procession later this year.

There is a saying that I'm sure many fellow males can vouch is true from personal experience and that is to say be careful of a woman scorned. That is what happened later in the week when former Europe minister Caroline Flint resigned after sending Gordon Brown an open letter in which she said she objected to being used as "window dressing", just a day after having given her full support to Gordon Brown. Leaving an appraisal of Ms Flint's not insignificant MILF qualities aside for one moment, I would think that her decision to resign was more to do with her not benefiting in Gordon Brown's cabinet reshuffle. It is known that Ms Flint is a close ally of both Blears and Smith, which leads me to think she was also trying to strike a blow for the sisterhood, however misguided that was.

There have been accusations that Gordon Brown has chauvinistic tendencies and that has influenced his recent hirings and firings, while his close and trusted male allies have fared best from the reshuffle. I think this trend is a coincidence and the real reason that Jacqui Smith and Hazel Blears left is simply that their positions became untenable and so they resigned before they were pushed. In Caroline Flint's case, her political career is far from outstanding and her previous spell as Housing Minister came to an end when confidential briefing notes for a meeting at 10 Downing Street were captured on camera.

If the Labour Government was in a healthy position, these eruptions would be far less harmful than they are proving to be. But because the foundations have already been shaken by the ongoing economic travails and the expenses row, what should have been a minor earth tremor is more like a full scale earthquake. The Labour administration has been in power for twelve years now and like any Government that has been in power for so long, it has become stale and is making routine mistakes that a Government fresh to power would not be making.

The question of how long can Gordon Brown last as Prime Minister will become apparent over coming days, but it will depend on whether a senior member of his serving cabinet breaks rank and calls for a leadership election. Either that, or another senior member of the party that has previously served in the cabinet puts themselves forward as an alternative leader and attracts enough support from within the party that a leadership contest is triggered. If that happens, then it could result in a similar scenario to the one that occurred in 1990 when Margaret Thatcher was forced from office. Thatcher won the first ballot but did not have quite enough of a majority to prevent a second ballot happening. This lack of a majority was enough for Thatcher to tender her resignation. A similar situation with Gordon Brown should not be ruled out, especially if the European election results are as grim for Labour as the preliminary indications suggest they will be.

Regardless of whether Brown does get a stay of execution or not, I feel that it is unlikely that we will get beyond the autumn without a General Election occurring. Brown's lack of popularity at the moment can in part be explained by the fact that he has never been elected by the British public and it is inevitable that unless there is a dramatic change in the public mood in the coming weeks and months, which given that unemployment is rising all the time would seem unlikely, then Brown would face a heavy defeat at the polls. A change of leader for Labour would only result in a slight reduction in the crushing majority that the Conservatives will surely gain.

The early indications from the European elections, not just in the United Kingdom, but in Europe's other leading countries are that the centre right parties are going to fare best in the polls. There are a couple of things that can be read into this. Maybe that people are voting for parties opposed to a Federal Europe and, using the United Kingdom as an example, are siding with the parties that will favour a referendum on the European Union. It could also suggest that parties that favour tougher policies on immigration are getting favoured over the parties with a more relaxed stance. Hence, the Tories, UK Independence Party and, alas, the British National Party seem likely to gain in terms of their percentage of the vote while the Liberal Democrats and obviously the Labour Party will be in for a sharp fall.

I think on a more general point though it comes down to people making a protest vote and saying "we will vote for anyone but Labour". Having crossed Labour out, they are then looking at which party is most likely to take tough decisions in a time when the political and economic climates demand them. Seemingly, the pragmatism of the Conservative Party is trusted to make the hard decisions more than other opposition parties at the moment.

Interesting thought processes, but David Cameron still has much to prove. Amid all the calls that Cameron has made for an election, he has been far less vocal about his plans for governing the country and as Brown rightly pointed out in PMQs this week, Cameron has done little to challenge him on matters of policy within the chamber in recent times. Cameron's response to this will be that he has been representing the public mood in demanding when an election will be called, but it is also convenient for him in masking his party's policy shortcomings. Cameron will need to get writing his manifesto fast as I expect he will need to jump on the battle bus in late summer.

3. A right royal PR disaster
This weekend has seen the commemoration of the sixty fifth anniversary of D-Day and Operation Overlord with a number of special events and speeches laid on in Normandy. Barack Obama, Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown were all in attendance, but it was the one person who was not that generated the most controversy. Her Majesty the Queen was expected to represent Britain at the ceremony, but she was to be found at Epsom watching one of her racehorses on the undercard to The Derby.

The circumstances around The Queen not being in attendance has naturally caused outrage in quarters where outrage is only too easily vented, namely in the editorial offices of the Daily Mail and the Daily Express. Conspiracy theories have been circulated and questions have been asked as to who it was that decide to snub Ma'am when sending out the invites. Whoever it was, it was certainly a very foolish oversight by those concerned.

There are those that suggested The Queen should have insisted that she be allowed to attend. But it does seem absurd to suggest that a serving monarch should go begging cap in hand to be allowed to attend the commemoration. The nostalgia buffs have been quick to point out that the Queen served in the forces towards the end of World War II and so she should therefore be there as the survivors could more readily identify with her. But this is all symbolism really. Yes, if the Queen had been invited at an earlier juncture, I am sure she would have made the trip across the channel. The fact of the matter is that she was not, so should she just wait by a telephone in the hope that she could get an invite right at the last?

It is also worth bearing in mind who ended up going in her place. That's right, the Prince of Wales. First in line to the throne. The next king of England. If he is not deemed ready to represent the Royal Family now on a national duty, when exactly will he be? His mother is 83 years old, his father is 88 years old. Just because they are royalty does not mean they should be immune from slowing down a tiny bit and letting others take on some more responsibility. Let's face it, sending the Duke of Edinburgh on a foreign sojourn is a risky business at the best of times, let alone for such a sombre occasion.

The Prince of Wales will become King Charles III in the not too distant future, you would expect, either as a result of his mother's death or through her abdicating to allow him his chance as he is now 61 years old. It is only natural that there should be some kind of handover period where the future king gets to represent his country on state occasions. His appearance in Normandy might have been an impromptu one, but I doubt it will be the last time that he is asked to go somewhere in place of his mother, and nor should it be. As with everything else right now, let's blame this PR disaster on the Government.

4. Nothing without the product
The business pages in the past week have been dominated by the news of General Motors' bankruptcy. This initially came as shock news as GM have always been regarded as one of the real powerhouses of US commerce and big trend setters for global businesses in establishing a functional organisational structure as a division of labour.

Scratch beneath the surface though and you realise the truth is that GM has failed simply because of one very basic fact. Their products have just not been good enough. That is the bottom line. You could in fact extend that comment to the US car industry as a whole. Whereas once, Henry Ford had been a pioneer in getting the US to lead the way in manufacturing standards and product differentiation for the humble motor vehicle, their cars have faded in popularity as more Americans have switched to driving European or Japanese cars. The Japanese manufacturing principles of TQM and Just-in Time have been instrumental in raising the bar of car manufacturing and their leading brands, such as Honda and Toyota have gone from strength to strength while time has stood still for GM and its compatriots.

There had been suggestions that the US Government should step in and save GM in much the same way that it did with its big insurance giant AIG last year. That was an altogether different situation though, because unless the vast majority of businesses in the United States owns a GM car which is of significant asset value to the future of the business then the impact of their loss to business would not be felt. Without the leading insurance company in the country, it stands to reason that companies would go to the wall because their insurance guarantors would not be in a position to pay out. You can survive without a fleet of company cars, unless you happen to be a taxi company, but without any insurance, you are permanently behind the eight ball. There is no point sustaining a failing company unless there is no-one else out there in a position to do things better and that is why there will be no rescue package for General Motors.

Nonetheless, the impact of General Motors will have an effect on the community within Detroit. What was once the US's motor city is now facing an uncertain future and that is where it needs to be wary of Detroit's other less wanted tag, that of being a city rife with crime, not just confined to bananas being inserted in tailpipes as happened in Beverly Hills Cop which was set in the city. Barack Obama as senator of the adjacent state of Illinois will no doubt be aware of the challenges ahead and the need to retrain those whose jobs are lost, so avoid the temptation of a life of crime in order to make ends meet.