Birmingham Today

I see from the Sutton News that my prediction (see Every Little Helps - Part One) concerning the turning of a garden along Walmley Ash Road into a nice little-earner has been given the go-ahead.

I think that the statement that the ‘development’ accords with the council’s Places for Living scheme, which promotes the use of developed land for new homes is priceless. If a garden is developed land then so is a field after thousands of years of human habitation in Britain there is NO un-developed land left. The entire countryside from cleared forests to hedgerows is the result of development.

But then we should expect no more from authority – if your id is stolen and used to commit fraud against a company the law holds that the company is the victim and you are responsible for making good the loss. Mmmh!

Anyway, I digress. It turns out that the above policy has an ‘if’ to it. Development is allowed if it is in keeping with the area. So, we’ll be coming back to this to see how much sensitivity Planning really has.

I was struck by an article in the Sutton Observer, just before Christmas, about a proposal to build two houses on someone’s garden along Walmley Ash Road.

Of course, the issue was that it was less of a proposal more likely a stone cold certainty that this would happen. What really struck me though was how little the world changes and how little faith we should place in those in charge of it.

The objection to these houses was along the lines of the parking problems this would cause along Ashfern Drive – only a council could name a cul-de-sac a drive. Anyway.

Parents picking up children from the Shrubbery School use Ashfren Drive and I can testify as to how busy that road is, although (obviously) only during term-time.

As can be seen from the picture (better quality pictures can be found in the Gallery), 4 or 5 cars can probably park there at the moment. If house drives are there that’s probably going to be three at most. Not a big difference, but someone will partially block a drive of that you can be sure.  Certainly people will park opposite these new drives and someone will have parked close to a drive so that getting in and out of a drive will, eventually, cause some incident to take place.

Not a big deal in the scheme of things, but unnecessary. In fact doubly unnecessary as the council, in almost certainly accepting this proposal – a planning officer approves – will add (just a little more) to problems of flooding, especially flash flooding.

As can be seen from the photographs, this drive is currently a fair-sized sponge. When it rains it can soak up quite a bit. With two houses on that sponge and sudden downpour is going to end up being someone’s problem – although not the council’s.

Secondly, as can be seen from photos of houses nearby, these houses will be out of keeping with the area. Existing houses on the Walmley Ash Road are of a traditional pre-war design, these proposed ones will be of a ‘modern’ design.  Although Ashfern Drive already has ‘modern’ style houses there is a break between the two so the eye isn’t readily attracted to the difference. Furthermore, a body of trees hides the new houses. It strikes me that the development will cause the area to look like a collection  of sheds.

The end result is community 0 council 2. Eh! What’s that all about? Well, the council will not have two more sources of council tax. The tax from 10 Walmley Ash Road will (probably) stay the same as the tax works in bands not on value and the band will probably not change. But there will be three for the price one  deal – better than Tesco, eh? And somebody has to pay for those unfunded, generous (overly so?) pension deals that council workers so (richly??) deserve.

Everyone can see the vast increase in domiciles in Sutton, although with no new schools. Everyone can see the desire for property developers to turn a window basket into a des res. So we have an unholy alliance between Arthur Daley and Mr. McAwber – after all every little helps.

Well, we’ve come to the end of an era. No, I’m not talking about the end of the pier show that feature the pantomime horse that was Tony Blair and Gordon Brown - although that was more like the Pushme-Pullyou from Dr Dolittle. No, I’m referring to my son’s finishing has A-levels and the end of secondary education.
Although we’ve been through major changes before - first day at school, going from junior to secondary school - this is more profound. Both his first day at school and the move to secondary school still left Sam as a child the day after. The end of secondary school, combined with that rite of passage - the passing of a driving test, leaves you as a parent in no doubt; the day after tomorrow is a different world, an adult world.

 No more frantic searching for sports kit, no more parents’ evenings, worst of all no more school ski-trips. The school ski-trips seemed to bring out the best in my son. He is a good skier and,  being an only child (as I am),  you worry about how well they will make friends and socialise - just as my mother did about me. But along with the good there has been some bad - not least with ‘A’ levels.
School is not really about education, it is about box ticking. Voltaire’s view that education is a fire to be lit not a vessel to be filled is a million miles away from the reality of UK education. It probably always was but when I did my ‘A’-levels we had time, particularly at lower-sixth level, to spend time on education rather than exam passing.
My greatest influence was my chemistry teacher, Dr Nathaniel Schulman - universally known as ‘the Doc’.. A holocaust survivor who, in the great tradition of European Jewry, ran the philosophy classes, the chess club, the debating society. By persecuting such people, the Nazis were always going to lose the Second World War. Dr Schulman did more than anyone else to light that fire.
My son, on the other hand, like all other sixth-form students had AS levels to study for when in the lower-sixth. I tried to be his Dr Schulman.
On a more practical level, in my day you studied three A-levels in search of grades. Now four are studied in pursuit of points, with an algorithm to turn grades into points. And, of course, points mean prizes. I thought four seemed a lot, if they were to be done to the depth required, so when my son wanted to drop history that seemed reasonable. What neither me nor his mother realised was that he would get points from an exam just by writing down his name. However, the school should have known that. So when he asked to drop it the school made no attempt to explain the implication of this.
For the best part of one year his English teacher was absent. This usually meant cancelled classes. Concerns raised over this  were always met politely but totally ineffectively. In the end we (his mother and I) solved it in the time-honoured middle-class way - we hired a teacher for him.
In the end all was well that ended well. In fact, Sam did as well as any of his friends that had passed their 11-plus and gone to King Edwards. My wife and I filled the gap - a moral for anyone look to the public-sector for assistance. You’ll get the minimum, if you want quality you need to be in a position to make your own provision.
As one era closes another opens. Sam now enters the waiting room of life. Not knowing what he wants or can do, he has to now start finding his own way. University is just a way (although an expensive one) of putting tomorrow off.

‘Regrets? I’ve had a few, but then too few to mention’. I guess that’s true of most people. I have one particular regret concerning a buxom hair-dresser.
As a young man I worked for a French oil-services company -  I monitored an analysed the progress in drilling wildcat (exploratory) oil and gas wells. It was (very) well paid but meant working overseas in some unpleasant places. When I came home on leave (my folks lived in Bedworth, North Warwickshire)  I usually took the opportunity of getting a decent hair-cut. I used a unisex salon (in the 1970s such things were very metrosexual) in Coventry. Some young lady would cut your hair and usually not a word passed between you. One day such a young lady begins cutting my hair only to have another ‘muscle’ her way in. She was very chatty. She was interested in me and invited me to her birthday party. And she had a great body.
I never went. I’m not too sure why now,  I think it was simply nerves. However,  have reflected, from time to time, whether that was an opportunity for sex that passed me by, a cardinal sin for males.
Making a quantum leap, the Erdington Fountain has started to take on the attributes of a relationship that might have been (see my original blog for the start of this etraordinary affair); quite what Freud might make of that I don’t know. On Friday 16th March I went to Erdington for my usual supply of fruit and veg. You can imagine my excitement at seeing the Erdington Fountain shooting a plume of water skywards. The leak is fixed, the stolen part replaced, God’s in his heaven and all is well with the world. I always try and remember my camera so as to capture those magic moments - but I had missed my opportunity. I didn’t have it and the chance to record for posterity a functioning Erdington Fountain passed me by.
So the next day I decided to go and record this moment. I had this curious sixth-sense that the magic wouldn’t last forever. I was right. What God had given on Friday He had taken on Saturday and wasn’t about to resurrect it on Sunday. The Erdington Fountain was no loner a plume of water but had reverted to its inert state, it was a dead fountain. So it was back to the Erdington Constituency.

The problem, it seems, had gone full circle - having fixed one leak another had appeared. As I reported in my original blog on the Fountain, the original problem was that water drained off the fountain, through the cobblestones and into the pump motors causing them to trip-out. The cobblestones having been sealed so that water couldn’t leak that way a new leak had appeared that was tripping-out the motors. This leak was proving elusive (the rascal) to find.
I asked the obvious - ‘What is so special about this fountain?’ Nothing it would seem. It does, at least in my mind, beg the question - ‘Why are the pumps not waterproof?’  After all, a visit to any large garden centre will demonstrate a large display of pumps that spend all their working-lives totally immersed in water. Wish I’d have thought to ask that question!
Anyway, it looks as if the joy of babbling water is to be denied us for some time yet.

Aah, Spring! Slowly, but surely, the world comes back to life. Buds on the trees, bulbs beginning to flower, the Erdington Fountain a sparkling spring - well, not really.
Winter has come and gone but the Fountain is still frozen in time, just as it was back in November. However, in the world of the Fountain things do move, but at a glacial pace.
As I wrote in a previous blog (A Shocking Exposé), the basic problem was that the fountain leaked. As we all know, water and electricity, like me and tele-sales people, do not mix.
The leak has now been fixed. The pump motors re-wound. The system has been cleaned out. It’s already for lift-off a la Space Shuttle. But wait - a mishap.
This being 21st-century Britain someone has pinched the diffuser. This is the metal object on top of the fountain that gives an  umbrella effect rather than a Space Shuttle effect at blast-off..
Quite who would want such a thing is hard to know. The obvious candidate would be someone from the Four Oaks estate down to their last million. But now it’s down to Museums, who apparently commissioned the work, to look for the receipt. If such a thing can’t be got off the shelf in B&Q it may well have to be specially made.
Was this a one-off by the same people who supplied Saddam Hussein’s palaces with gold taps? Are their order books full with requests from Posh and Becks in L.A.? For I’m sure this fountain has to be a very special one. Fountains have been known to have water, even to have electric pumps. But Erdington has a special one - it leaks. With parts so rare that even Jeremy Clarkson might begin to think highly of Brummies. OK, that’s an exaggeration. Everyone knows Clarkson only thinks highly of himself.
So, it is with breath not held that we await the passing of the seasons. Summer be a-coming in.

Eddie Reader

It is hard to imagine a link between Sir Isaac Newton (the father of physics whom Einstein admired) and David Brent of the office, who is probably only admired by the management at The Carphone Warehouse. They rung me four times in the space of 24 hours to sell me broadband. This is despite being told on each occasion that I knew their service was rubbish and that there was no way on this earth I would have it. Being perfectly happy with Pipex.
There is the obvious if forced observation that both knew of gravity, David Brent constantly falling on his face. There is a second (tenuous?) link that both observed the fact that to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Where they part company is that Newton was able to rationalise this into a law of physics Brent is simply dumbstruck and flounders to handle the experience.
A better similarity is between David Brent and Good Hope Hospital, or at least the management. Now, this isn’t just a cheap shot. Brent isn’t a bad person he is simply incompetent. And in fact it isn’t really Brent who is the true incompetent but the company he works for. When Brent finally gets the push, he is replaced as office manager by the only person he seemed to have a rapport with - the ‘Team Leader’, Gareth Keenan. David Brent MKI is replaced by David Brent MKII. The company, rather than the office, is in serious trouble,
So with Good Hope, its failings (which occur even when successful) are endemic to the system not the building. Let me explain.
In February 2007 Good Hope announced it was full. Having managed to fill the car park the management had now managed to fill every bed (but not trolleys) in every nook and cranny of the building. Not perfect, but let the hosannas reign as targets were met or passed or nearly or something.
Yeah, I know, more cynical carping. Look they’re doing better, not perfect, but hey get real.
But like Brent this action is likely to have an opposite reaction that, as far as can be seen, the management of Good Hope and the NHS in general struggle with comprehending. Infection is likely, very likely, to spread.
In Norway and Holland less than 1% of all bloodstream infections are drug resistant, while in Britain the figure is 44%. Figures compiled by the European Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System, which Dutch doctor Hajo Grundmann co-ordinates, show that Britain has higher rates of MRSA than all comparable European countries, including Germany, France and Spain, and is ranked  with Cyprus, Malta and Portugal.
As a doctor who has worked in Britain and Holland, Hajo Grundmann is well placed to offer an insight as to why the two countries are so far apart in the battle against MRSA.
Grundmann, a consultant microbiologist, cites the differing levels of cleanliness between Britain and Holland, apparent to anyone entering the hospitals. Dutch hospitals, are generally  modern and the design of the wards translates into the ability to isolate patients in single rooms, There is certainly a greater availability of beds.
However, cleanliness explains only a proportion of the transmission of MRSA but it is important because it is a marker for diligence and commitment and shows that staff are taking their work seriously.
Overcrowded British hospitals are a big contributor to infection. British hospitals have fewer single rooms and so isolating all infected patients is impossible. As a result, patients with MRSA need to be cared for on communal wards and risk passing on the bug.
The proximity of beds, the high percentage of beds occupied at any given time and the rapid turnover of patients fuelled the high rates of MRSA in British hospitals. So by squeezing in more patients, especially by squeezing in more beds in ward, what do you think might happen. More to the point what does management think might happen?
The inability to isolate patients due to lack of space and pressure to have wards open to keep waiting times down contrasts starkly with the drastic action taken to control MRSA outbreaks in Holland.
Grundmann recalls an outbreak in a large Dutch hospital in 2003, affecting 28 patients. Managers reacted by closing two wards, including an intensive care unit, and spent 2m Euros (£1.3m) screening all staff and patients. Staff found to be carrying MRSA were sent home.
Ironically, the process of screening patients for MRSA and isolating those found to be carrying the bug, a technique known as ’search and destroy’, was devised in Britain. But, in the mid-1990s when the MRSA rates began to soar, managers found it impossible to isolate all infected patients -  there simply was not enough space.
Yet this is against a backdrop of record levels of spending, sorry ‘investment’, in the NHS. The simple truth is that this money has been badly managed - but that should not be a surprise quite frankly.
The NHS was founded on three assumptions of human nature that were profoundly false. That the American taxpayer would GIVE Britain money to establish a socialist state. That patients would not pursue their own interests at the expense of others. That health workers would not pursue their interests at the expense of others. It soon became obvious that these assumptions were false. The American government loaned Britain the money, at a low interest rate but still a loan. Prescription charges were introduced because, in the words of Nye Bevan the father of the NHS, ‘they (patients) weren’t even bringing the bottles back’. So very early on it ceased to be a universal health system free at the point of delivery but became an affordable health system that the electorate would support. Political, rather than medical, interests became the order of the day.
It is probably worthwhile noting that the recent large sums of money are just that - recent. They didn’t materialise until after the 2001 election. During the election campaign a lady cornered Tony Blair in front of the cameras at the Queen Elizabeth and wanted to know why her partner wasn’t receiving adequate treatment for his cancer. Whilst it may be too simplistic to say that Mr. Blair is all presentation it is certainly true that he is very, very, very, very media savvy. Having won the election the good times rolled. It is worth noting that a similar complaint over GPs refusing appointments more than 24 hours in advance in order to fiddle their targets and get dosh has not been met with any response. Taxpayers are obviously a softer touch than doctors.
In fact taxpayers are a softer touch than doctors, nurses, members of Unison, NHS managers, IT consultants and drug companies. All of whom have benefited enormously from this money. Problem is that bricks and mortar and patients can’t talk. Pay may have had to improve but the supply of beds needed to improve more. But we all know it’s the squeaky brake that gets the oil. Of course some building has goneon. But that’s via PFI where effectively the private sector lends the government the money - it builds, the government leases.
It would be wrong to blame the management of Good Hope for this sort of thing. The wages are centrally negotiated - or rather surrendered. An example of this ‘negotiation’ is that before the 2005 election Alan Johnson surrendered retirement benefits to public-sector workers that are unknown in the private sector (where the money comes from). But as education secretary he has given in over conditions on public-money for faith schools. He makes Neville Chamberlain look like Winston Churchill.
This results in a situation Charles Darwin would have recognised. Those managers that have political rather than organisational and negotiating skills thrive.
Having calmed one source of bad headlines with pay rises, in the case of doctors very large pay rises, the electorate were calmed by targets of getting waiting lists down. The fact that the resources didn’t exist to do this safely is meaningless.
Any health-care system is imperfect. One where management can’t do the basics of wage control and quality is fatally flawed - you only have to look at British Leyland to see that. The NHS lurches from famine to feast and then back to famine. Governments pump money in as electoral pressure becomes unbearable. Rather than one-off spending on capital projects, the bulk of the money goes into wages. Once a building is built the flow of money can recede, with wages the only way to turn the tap off is to reduce headcount - just as has been seen in the NHS recently. The flow has to recede as government has over-allocated funds due to electoral pressure and, with time, that pressure moves elsewhere and the funds with it. Famine resumes with little or nothing to be shown from the feast.
Without competition management has no need to address fundamental problems. With politicians as their masters, the NHS managers address the agenda politicians set
The government’s PFI initiative (the private sector builds infrastructure and the government leases it) would, at first sight, seem a good way around this. The investment (rather than consumption in the form of wages) takes place and is ring-fenced from employees as the rent the lease demands has to be paid first. However, as the government (or civil servants) are so poor at negotiating with public-sector workers and private-sector consultants why should they be any better with builders? It is likely to be an expensive solution. But at least the patient may be better served.
But it would be a funny world if a wry smile couldn’t be found somewhere. The seriously concerned members of SCRAM got themselves in a bit of a lather over wi-fi networks at Good Hope. I guess scrambled by name and scrambled by nature (see my blog on mast huggers).
Of all the risks a patient faces in hospital, any imagined risk from wi-fi is completely, totally, utterly, incredibly negligible. Hope I got that over. What with medical mistakes, lost records (never know, a wi-fi network may help alleviate both of those - see Dr Larry Weed of Harvard on this), poor nutrition and, of course, infections - anyone concerned over wi-fi is worrying up a gum tree.
I shouldn’t be so dismissive of wi-fi concerns; anything that causes people to lead their lives in such a way as to stay clear of hospital is good. The NHS is not the National Health Service it is the National Delivery of Drugs and Medical Procedures Society. All the NHS horses and all the NHS men frequently can’t put Humpty together again.
We all know the answer, the real NHS service is provided by the likes of the fruit shops in Erdington and walking (driver, leave that car alone) . Because, whilst Newtonian physics got man to the moon and David Brent seemed constantly over the moon, I’m afraid expecting the NHS to get a grip on hospital-acquired infections is wishing for the moon.

In writing this it  feels like comparing Big Brother and Newsnight and finding that they are really the same thing - both Jeremy Paxman (deliberately) and Jade Goody (accidentally) having the same task of generating more heat than light. I am by no means convinced that anyone graduating from university has much to offer the commercial world. The commercial world knows this and responds accordingly.
There is an analogy here with religion, an idea held as a universal truth without much evidence to substantiate it.
The analogy with religion becomes more apt after considering Blaise Pascal’s thoughts on religion. Pascal was a mathematician who spent some time considering betting and came up with a reason to believe in God knows as Pascal’s Wager
He argued that if God didn’t exist and whether you believed that or nor there was no difference in outcome.
If, on the other hand, God did exist but you denied this existence you would spend eternity in hell. Whereas, by holding that belief you would go to paradise. So the risk far outweighed any reward and a rational person would, therefore, believe in God.
Similarly, conventional wisdom has it that the risk of paying £9,000 in tuition fees (at 2007 prices) plus the loss of 3 years paid employment is counter-balanced by the extra financial rewards that a degree brings. That is, graduates are paid substantially more than non-graduates.
Naturally, figures are quoted to back this argument up. Numbers matter in our society. Society regards itself as being rational, mathematics is the language of logic so numbers demonstrate rationality. However, just as Pascal’s Wager is over simplistic, so are these numbers and the rationale they are meant to underpin.
A belief in God is not sufficient since that belief needs to be demonstrated by the observance of dictats from God’s ‘mouthpieces’; priests, vicars, rabbis, imams, etc. This may, and probably will, cause the individual to incur greater risk than at first seems to be the case. They may engage in wars on behalf of God and will most certainly need to deny themselves pleasures on God’s behalf (as translated by the ‘mouthpieces’), In fact Pascal’s Wager looks to be not such a sure thing after all. So much for philosophers!
It is the same with numbers. By simply taking an average wage for graduates and comparing it with the average wage for non-graduates the assumption is that there are as many graduates and non-graduates earning below their respective averages as above them. That is both graduate and non-graduates have normally distributed wages.
A more reasonable approach would be to use median wages. These are wages where the numbers above and below are the same and so represent a more accurate picture of what might be achieved. 
Data presented at the Research Methods Festival held at St, Catherine’s College Oxford in 2006 is very illuminating. One presentation by Alissa Goodman of the Institute of Fiscal Studies showed that over a working lifetime the median wages of a male graduate would exceed the median wages of a male non-graduate by £405,500 (for females it was £383,000 - such is  life!). This may sound a lot but when subjected to analysis it is less impressive.
What is being presented is that, for a male, an investment of £40,500 (£9,000 tuition fees and a foregone post-tax income of £31,500 - 3 years at median non-graduate wage) is worth the total return of £405,000 - £283,850 post-tax. In order to assess this investment opportunity it is necessary to use a concept called discounted cashflow. That is the total post-tax return of £283,500 is made up of a number annual incomes (cashflow) over a 45 year period - 21 to 65 (it is very unlikely that the state-retirement age will fall with the twin pressures of an ageing population and a low birth-rate). To show the calculation I have posted an Excel spreadsheet .
This calculation shows that the value of an investment producing such cashflow is £13,172. Much less than the cost of a university education of £40,600. In fact, it’s only worthwhile if as a graduate you can get a job in the highest paying 10% of  jobs. That is, for 90% of graduates a university education  is not a financially worthwhile investment.
Furthermore. according to a survey by the accountants Price, Waterhouse, Cooper (PWC) only a third of graduates get a ‘graduate’ job when leaving university. However, 20% do spend a year travelling and may get such a job later. Even so, that would be only just over half of graduates getting such jobs.
The consequence of this is that, if only 33% to 53% of under-graduates end up in graduate jobs and only 10% of graduate jobs produce an income (cashflow) worthy of the investment of a university course; then only between 3% and 5% of university courses are a worthwhile investment. As with other investments, there should a wealth warning given out with university applications.

This doesn’t really surprise me as it fits in well with my own experience. I remember well when at ‘A’-level in the late 1960s my applied maths teacher (we had both pure and applied maths teachers) advised the class of 5 (I am shocked at the size of ‘A’-level classes my son has had) that if we did go to university we would never make up the financial loss of those 3 years. Of course, we didn’t believe him,  in any event in those days there were no tuition fees and there were maintenance grants (at least for me). This couldn’t be true. Oh yes it could.
When I graduated with a BSc in electronic and electrical engineering I found the wages I was being offered around 40% less than those of my cousin who worked in a British Leyland plant in Coventry. Furthermore, he had been earning that since he was 16 and I was now 21.
Of course, it can be argued that in the long-term he wasn’t so well off as British Leyland ultimately collapsed. Well, the main employer for electrical and electronic engineers appeared to be GEC and look where they have gone!
Fortunately, my bacon was saved by the oil price hike of the early 1970s and the Common Market. As Britain had joined the Common Market (the EU now) in 1972 it meant I could work in other European countries. I got a job in France working for an oil services company where the only qualifications required were that I spoke English (the pre-dominance of the USA in business has been my life-saver throughout my life) and had ‘A’-level physics. Note the degree never mattered.
This makes sense since I had left university with the distinct impression that my knowledge really hadn’t moved on much from my ‘A’-level days. As for the myth that university life somehow equipped me with analytical skills - complete rubbish. As in the preceding 10 years (from my 11-plus days) all  I was taught was to pass exams.
As any economist will tell you, the wage an individual earns is a result of their productivity measured in value-added per hour. The only value a graduate can add is either their intrinsic personal ability to learn new things and adapt, which university doesn’t provide, or knowledge that university does provide. This means that, at least in my case, the value add of most degrees is very small. There being little or no increase in knowledge between ‘A’-level and a degree and, therefore, little increase in earning power.
This is not the fault of universities. Universities exist to do research. In order to do that they need money. Under-graduates are a source of revenue. In my day the government paid everyone’s tuition fees and even provided maintenance grants. This meant that the taxpayer funded universities through research grants and tuition fees. University lecturers, in general, are not interested in teaching they want to do research. They teach because of the need for revenue. Although teaching and lecturing are not the same. To lecture is easy, just read out the script and answer any questions with disdain. To teach means to connect with the individual. Consequently, under-graduates (generally) teach themselves from material presented to them. Some of my worst teachers were at university.
By the introduction of top-up fees and the introduction of student loans, the government has introduced a voluntary tax to fund tertiary education. It has a high take-up on this tax due to aspirational parents, most of whom never went to university, seeing a degree as being a sort of magic wand. The pill is made easier to swallow as the old polytechnics, which have lower entry qualifications,  have now been branded as ‘universities’ as well thus making their funding easier too. Little Jimmy or Jane who, in the past, would not have made university (lucky them) are packed off to the University of New Town (formerly New Town Polytechnic) by parents proud that their offspring have achieved what they did not. Although, I have always suspected that in the teaching of productive subjects (for example, engineering) Polytechnics were better than universities as they were not so research-oriented.
Furthermore, economics also tells us that supply and demand are stabilised via price. If the supply of graduates increases whereas the demand for them remains static or even falls then the price will fall (the static case) or even tumble.
Of course, some employers will only consider graduates for employment. Sometimes this is because it can reasonably be expected that university has added value, medicine being a prime example. However, for a great many (if not most) it is simply lazy hiring practices. The PWC survey mentioned earlier found that only 5% of graduate jobs were actually part of a graduate training programme. In other words, 95% simply specified ‘graduate’  as a means of sorting potential hires. They didn’t require graduates it just made life easier.
This also probably accounts for the fact that graduate wages are not what might have been hoped from the investment - they end working for poorly managed firms.
Anyone hoping for a job in the public sector will not progress very far without a degree. However, as the public sector faces no competition for its services the only task facing management is how to share out taxpayers’ money. Classification, therefore, matters and a degree is a means of classification. Of course, not all degrees are equal and where the degree was obtained will become part of this process. The fact that the utilities were privatised as a result of Treasury failure to re-invest in the old water, gas and electricity boards. That the Home Office can’t deport foreign criminals and that the MOD finds it impossible to deliver the correct equipment  to the military all serve to demonstrate just how little value is added by most graduates.
The only reason a firm should want to hire graduates is, again, explained by economic theory. A firm is capital and labour brought together under the umbrella of knowledge. That knowledge being managerial knowledge. Labour may have knowledge of how to do something but it is managerial knowledge that enables that knowledge to produce goods and services the market values. A graduate making a piece of furniture can only be worth more than a non-graduate if the graduate makes a table that the market values more than the non-graduate. In practice, the value is added not by the maker but by the manager. Universities may have something academic to say about management but, by definition, that is theoretical.
The best, practical, example of this is the fact that both the US and the UK produce more graduates than Germany. Yet both the US and the UK have massive balance of trade deficits. That is the average American and Briton prefers to buy foreign goods and services rather than  from native firms despite the fact those firms have access to large numbers of graduates.
Germany, on the other hand, has few graduates but a large vocational (can-do) workforce producing goods and services people want and therefore value.
Closer to home, Birmingham, despite having a number of grammar schools, still saw the loss of both British Leyland and Lucas. My cousins’ son got a first in Physics from Oxford. His job opportunities were either British Nuclear Fuels or the City. He chose the City and later Microsoft and has done well. But that is down to dubious practices by both the City (investment funds, endowment policies and pension plans that have failed) and Microsoft than to do with providing superior goods and services.
This brings us back to Pascal’s Wager. He argued that a belief in God (ignore the question of which one) outweighed any risks because the risk of disbelief (eternal damnation) outweighed the benefit (such as it is) of atheism. So it is with a degree. It is not the degree that matters but how old the graduate is. A thirty year old getting a degree and seeking a new employer and fresh employment will find it much harder than a twenty-one year old. So it is, effectively, a once in a lifetime chance to turn graduation into money. A once in a lifetime chance to avoid the pits of damnation. What parent is going to deny their child such an ‘opportunity’ no matter how unlikely it is to succeed. Parents that have a son with the talent to kick a football who is spotted by a professional football club are unlikely to deny their son that opportunity in favour of academic study or just messing around.- both are likely to benefit their child more than being spotted - because, it might, just might, be a path to wealth and fame.

Caveat emptor is a legal term for buyer beware. Why the law has to use a Latin phrase when a perfectly good English one exists does seem strange. I’m sure some would argue that some would argue that it goes back to the Middle Ages where Latin was used for law-making as no one could write English, or French or anything else.  I think Latin is used in the law as it is in medicine - to confuse. It’s like when you go to the doctor and he or she doesn’t have a clue what’s wrong and pronounces that ‘there’s a virus going round’. What’s that? Have viruses suddenly got a travelcard from the council and spending their waking hours travelling around. Of course, there’s a virus going around. There’s always a bloody virus going around!
Most doctors aspire to be consultants and, to be fair to them, you can always get a second-opinion. Lawyers also have aspirations - to be judges (otherwise known as tossers), and if you ask a second-opinion of them you’re more likely to spend a second night in the cells.
As I approach the first anniversary of the worst fate known to modern domestic life - the failure of central heating in the winter- the pain of my brush with the law comes flooding back.
The first sign of impending Argemenon was warm radiators upstairs and cold down - had to be a blockage. This soon developed into a knocking sound in the boiler - lack of water circulating. But after 22 years a new boiler seemed reasonable.
My instinct was to search Yellow Pages for someone who was a member of the Institute of Plumbers. From their website, these seem a serious bunch of people. Having spent my working life solving problems you get an instinct for ‘can-do’ people. Furthermore, these are individual traders. In other words they put their reputation on the line as individuals when they do work. Of course, some people don’t give damn but most would sooner be seen buying a celebrity magazine (or worse still an Andy McNab novel) than sully their reputation.
My wife had spotted an advertisement in the Evening Mail and suggested giving the 0800 phone number a ring. This made the hairs on the back of my neck stand-up. If a company can afford to have an 0800 number they are likely to be the exact opposite of what you want. However, I suffer from male obstinacy. I won’t ask for directions and always insist on determining what our household’s view on Bank of England monetary policy should be. In other words I suffer from not listening to my wife. On this occasion I thought I would listen.
So the number was rung and a salesman called. First danger sign, when a salesman calls rather the bloke doing the work - Danger Will Robinson! My first-choice, the independent trader had already called and given a quote and date, as will become clear later - dates matter very much in this story. Anyone who did history at school knows that dates matter - 1066, Battle of Hastings, 1215,  Magna Carta, 2006 Battle of Boiler Hill! His quote was fine, but he wanted to run a gas-pipe outside the house - didn’t like that!
Anyway said 0800 salesman came up with a solution to install a boiler that didn’t need to have a gas-pipe on the outside of the house, in the same time-frame and cheaper. This, of course, gave me no way to dis my wife’s suggestion. No way to assert those innate male qualities like judging level shelves without the use of a spirit-level (after enough spirits they’re level anyway) and the understanding of the off-side rule.
So the first date in this saga arrived - a Thursday. This was the date both the 0800 salesman and my Yellow Pages had chosen for installation. Fitters duly arrived and began to survey the job, fair enough. And then the first snag - the boiler was too small for the job. I was going to have to pay for a more expensive one, fitted next week and with a gas-pipe running outside the house. Of course, had I have known this earlier I wouldn’t have parted with a £500 deposit on a credit-card nor signed a contract. Decision time - do I scrap the whole thing and risk not getting my deposit back. Can the contract be cancelled? Or do I still need to go ahead? Even if  I can do these things, when can a boiler be installed? It’s February and it’s cold!
So, I give in. Sign-up for a new boiler and wait until Tuesday.
Well, Monday arrives, as normal, before Tuesday. Along with it a boiler (although it was only by chance  that  someone was there to receive it) and a phone-call to confirm boiler’s arrival. Looking good, Spoke too soon, another phone call - it’s the wrong boiler. What! Are they sure? Yes. Can I speak with a manager? No. Going to be Saturday now!
So I pen an indignant letter of complaint asking for compensation over this delay caused by this company. What a silly Billy! It’s not company policy to countenance such things. I bet it’s bloody not!
Saturday arrives, fitters arrive but no new boiler arrives. Fitters fit Monday’s boiler and I smell a rat.
Sparks fly as my fingers indignantly tap out another letter to these people asking for an explanation of these dubious proceedings. What  I get back amazes me. A letter saying that on the fitters’ first visit (remember that long forgotten first Thursday) they (the fitters) didn’t realise there was no boiler on site. What an admission! I had them bang to rights. Patently the fitters came unarmed. No boiler on site, no boiler in their van, no boiler and no intention to fit period. Puffing my chest right out, taking the gloves off, putting the thinking cap on but not, unfortunately, taking the rose-coloured spectacles off -  I decide to launch a claim in the Small Claims Court. How naive!
Of course,  indignation isn’t enough - you also need some legal basis for a claim. Well, Perry Mason thought he’d cracked this one. Not one but three (well two and one-half) laws seemed to be on my side.
Sale of Goods Act 1979, goods have to be fit for purpose.
Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.  requirements of Act not met for delivery within a reasonable time.
Misrepresentation Act 1967 - company achieved a sale by underselling
My argument being that it is reasonable to expect a salesperson to be able to identify a viable solution to a problem, in this case identify a suitable boiler. A competitive advantage can be gained by selling a cheaper but inadequate solution and then relying upon the position the customer then finds themselves in  (possible loss of deposit, contractual arrangements and further delay) to sell the correct more expensive solution. In fact in this case the overall cost ended being greater than the first quote I got and took longer.
In other words, misrepresent the first solution in order to sell a second.
I put my case to the company first of all, in an attempt to come to a settlement. They weren’t having any of it so high oh, high oh it’s off to court we go. And what a fairy tale that was.
Each party tells their side of the story and then Grumpy makes his mind up.
Well out goes the Sales of Goods Act, a stalwart of consumer affairs programmes, the company had made redress by identifying the correct solution eventually so had made matters right.  I never did pin much faith on that but it was worth a bash.
Out goes the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, even though the government website I got this from seems a dead ringer. Seems 10 days unnecessary delay caused by this company in the middle of winter and without any heating is ok.
Out goes the Misrepresentation Act 1967. And here’s the best bit - as a customer I should have known that under contract law I could have cancelled the contract on that first Thursday and got my deposit back. Also, that the customer has to know whether the item being sold (in this case a boiler) is correct not the salesman.
So I have to be an expert on contract law and a gas-fitter but someone employed by a company to get sales doesn’t need to know a balanced flue from a balanced cheque book. Yes, that is unfair - of course they know what a balanced cheque book is.
Or at least that’s how I understand it. Whilst His Grumpiness could explain why the Sale of Goods Act 1979 was out (it was a long shot) I understood nothing as to why the rest didn’t work. If you think the current definition of offside is baffling you want to hear one of these plonkers. Of course, ‘’Scuse me your Exquisiteness, can you run that by me again?’ doesn’t work.
So there you have it. Three golden rules of buying
Don’t unless you really, really, really have to
Make sure you know the answer before you ask the question
Never use a 0800 salesman
I could add a fourth. Caveat Emptor - means buyer beware. To beware means to be aware. It means to be informed, without information a customer is blind and cannot be aware. I could give the name of this company. But if I did I fear I might be charged with corporate libel. Why I don’t know since this blog, like any, permits comments and this company could put its side. So even though such information would be in the public interest and maybe I could claim that as a ‘journalist’ - I’m not risking it because judges make it up as they go along and I’m not risking it.
Suffice to say the company come from Wolverhampton.
This tale of woe could end here, but I think there is a deeper issue. This company could have learned from this experience so that they ensured that their salesmen and women protected their ‘brand’. Since the court has found on their favour this is unlikely. It also means that the selling practices used by this company, which are at best inept and (in my opinion) dubious, are probably rife in the economy. That means that my experience must be quite commonplace. As a consequence, new businesses must face a large hurdle.
New companies are unknown quantities. Maybe they are good but maybe they are tricksters. Consumers face a risk. When that risk is made worse by the courts not setting high standards in corporate behaviour it means consumers must seek higher ‘rewards’. That is,  to demand more than can reasonably be achieved. That means many companies that come to market find that market-place too demanding and don’t setup; although those dealing sharp-practice will not have a problem.
Small companies become larger companies and are an economy’s future. Where those companies start small and become big by sharp practice they ultimately fail in a global market where companies are out performed by those that have grown by good practice in an economy requiring that. The British car industry is an excellent example of that.
Whilst it would be very foolish to read too much into my experience,  I think there is evidence that my case was a microcosm of a deeper malaise. The law exists to regulate human transactions. Courts are to be preferred to a baseball bat to resolve conflicts.
The British government is proposing to remove trial by jury in complex fraud cases, Fraud (trials without a Jury) Bill. This means that whilst American prosecutors can and do prosecute complex frauds such as Enron and Worldcom, British lawyers are not so able. Since legislatures are mostly made up of lawyers, naturally, it is therefore reasonable to assume that British governments and legislators are not very good - despite the plaudits the universities most of them come from, Oxford and Cambridge, receive.
As a result I think my experience of poor thinking by those in authority is manifest through much of our society. Caveat emptor, and having expertise in all that matters to you,  applies to more than just gas-boilers.

The opening line of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice reads
It is a truth, universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife
That could be re-written nowadays as
 It is a truth, universally acknowledged, that a politician in possession of outrage must be also in possession of an agenda (probably hidden)
So it is with the proposal being floated to pay for parking at Wyndley - it is a political technique to run an idea up the flag-pole and see who salutes or at least doesn’t burn the flag pole.
I’m totally convinced that the political philosophy of John Locke is rarely if ever discussed in Birmingham Council - but it would do councillors well to be mindful of it. Locke’s thinking underpins what we mean by a liberal society. The ordinary person is free to do whatever they like as long as the government (or council) does not prohibit it. Furthermore, that prohibition has to based on evidence that the outcome of the prohibition is for the general good. I admit that’s my interpretation of his ‘law of nature’ but I think it’s a fair one.
It’s a bit of a mouthful I know but it makes England greater than any football, rugby or cricket team ever could. And nearly as good as the one Jamie Oliver might make.
Wow, parking charges at Wyndley Leisure Centre linked to Jane Austen and 17th century political philosophers, the world must have gone mad.
In aiming to justify the proposed charges Councillor Peter Howard, Sutton Coldfield Constituency Chairman, is quoted as saying

‘At weekends I would have thought half the car park was being used by shoppers - you only have to stand there to see they’re not using the leisure centre’.
So what! There is, obviously, a supply of parking spaces at Wyndley. There is demand from both visitors to the pool or leisure centre and from shoppers. How big the ’shopper’ demand is we don’t know. Councillor Howard obviously has no evidence of the demand and is merely using his own intuitive powers. Now I’m sure that, as a councillor, his powers of intuition are likely to be greater than other mere mortals but you can’t beat evidence.

I think, though, that this ‘bag of a fag packet’ assessment is as likely as Jonathan Woss being able to say ‘I rank as one of the top presenters in the UK’ without making a fool of himself. Although his hairdresser seems to do a good job of that!
From the moans that come from shopkeepers when double-yellow lines are painted outside their shops, it would seem that shoppers are reluctant to walk a few yards to the shops let alone the few hundred yards from Wyndley to Gracechurch!

In any event the size of ’shopper’ demand is irrelevant, there is no sign of demand being greater than supply. No queues for spaces, nor angry letters of complaint no car park confrontations. Nothing, nil, niente. Since demand does not exceed supply, economics tells us there is no need for a price rise. Since the current price is zero then there is no valid argument for any price to be levied.
What there is an increased demand for is cash and that demand is from the council. Undoubtedly, Birmingham. like other councils, has problems with pension funding. It is highly likely that the council, being non-Labour, is being treated in a miserly way by the Labour government. Council tax rises are an emotive issue both locally and in Westminster - so all money ruses are gratefully accepted.
Of course, it would be nice to think that the elected officials would put the facts before the electorate and give them (the electorate) the choices to be made. However, stealth taxes are not new. It may serve Conservatives to treat Gordon Brown as if he had invented the concept, but it pre-dates Gordon by a long way. Colbert, Louis XIV’s finance minster, coined the truism ‘ the art of taxation is to pluck the goose with the least amount of hissing.’
Councillor Howard’s quote implies that by shoppers using the Wyndley car park they are being ‘immoral’. Consequently, they deserve to be punished for their immorality. The greater good being served by restricting the rights of certain individuals. Just a piece of stealth taxation really.

Lots of concerns have been raised over health-fears related to mobile phone masts and even wireless Internet connections (WiFi). There is no evidence to substantiate these concerns but, the objections are not totally irrational.
The first thing to understand is why evidence matters. In the mid-17th early-18th century a philosophical movement developed called the Enlightenment. This concept was that rather than human beings using intuition to develop an understanding of their world they would use scientific process. This scientific process, or method, has three parts. The first part is to generate an idea or hypothesis. The second part is then to gather evidence by observation (experimentation being one method of observation) using a method that others can reproduce. The third part is that others repeat the methodology and see if they get the same observations (evidence). The third part serves as a means of either disproving  the whole hypothesis or fine-tuning it. That is, they get very similar results but observe something more complex than was originally conceived.
This sounds all very dry. It is the basis of our society. So, if a crime is committed rather using trial-by combat (God will surely intervene on the side of the righteous) or intuition, that shifty looking bloke with one eyebrow must have pinched my DVD, a court requires evidence.
Rather than drilling a hole in someone’s head to let out the evil spirits that are causing a headache we take an anti-inflammatory like aspirin.
The starting point is the hypothesis. This means that something is observed and an attempt made to describe it. For example, when Galileo observed marbles rolling he described what was going on using the terms inertia and friction. By using a smoother surface the marbles rolled further. That is he formed a hypothesis following an observation and then conducted experiments to prove or disprove it.
Later, another party, Sir Isaac Newton, fine-tuned this into his first Law of Motion. This may be the stuff of nightmares for school children but that first Law of Motion changed the way people saw movement. It changed from being an intuitive one where things move because you make them to one where objects continue to move not because you push them but because you push in order to overcome forces that would stop them - friction. The less friction the less the push.
Yawn! What has this got to do with mobile masts. Well, once a society develops a way of thinking that is non-evidence based it does so at its peril. One of the most dis-honest and intellectually bankrupt concepts ever devised is the ‘pre-cautionary’ principle. This is a concept that would have had our forebears starve to death in a cave since they would have been too frightened to go outside to hunt or gather food. You cannot prove safety. Safety is a lack of danger. Something is safe until proved dangerous, not dangerous until proved safe.
By using observation evidence can be gathered as to the effect something has. Without use there can be no observation  How long do you experiment looking for danger? How long do you deny yourself access to something beneficial (like a mobile phone) whilst trying to re-assure yourself it is safe?
The ‘pre-cautionary’ principle means no trains (trains crash) it means no aeroplanes (planes crash), it means no cars, it means no knives (people cut themselves or others) it means no plates (people can cut themselves if one breaks), etc.. Get the idea!
So this must mean that I disagree with the mobile must protesters - right? Wrong. All the above risks, from leaving caves for food to driving cars, also carry rewards. So by taking the risk of being eaten by a sabre-tooth tiger there is the reward of bringing home the mammoth. Certainly the erection of a mobile phone mast brings rewards - but not (at least not obviously) to those living near them.
The phone company obviously benefits. As does the council, in an odd way, by saving money rather than spending it. If a planning application is denied the company can always appeal to the government. That will incur costs as the council seeks to defend its decision. So by not denying permission the council saves money. The government, possibly the final arbiter, most definitely benefits. It raises taxes (VAT) on any calls made, taxes on income from employees of the company and more tax on corporation taxes on the company itself.
For those living near the mast there is the cost of a potential eye-sore and  the effect on property prices of the (unsubstantiated) fear of health-effects. But no reward. Well there is one, mobile phone handsets have a transmitter themselves. The nearer a handset is to a base-station (mast) the less power this transmitter uses. Since the handset transmitter is closer to the individual than the mast is then this reduced output is a benefit. But it applies to everyone near the mast not just those that reside near the mast.
This is not that unusual. Children for instance bear a substantial cost from traffic whilst enjoying little reward.
A major contributor to the rise in childhood obesity is the motor car. Both playing in the street, a major way of children developing social skills, and walking or cycling to school  are fraught with danger from motorists. A survey from the University of Birmingham, Archives of Disease in Childhood, showed that 49 per cent of primary school children walk to school now compared to 62 per cent in 1989. The number of children being driven to school having doubled in 20 years. Those children where there is more than one car in the family walk the least.
As road traffic has increased so more and more parents drive their children to school. This increases traffic and proves an incentive for even more parents to behave in this way. All of this means less and less activity for children.
The biggest killer of young teenagers, those between 12 and 15, is the motor car. It is at this age that young people generally stop being  ferried to and from school and have to face Death Race 2000 for the first time.. 70 were killed in 2000 and 9,00 injured.
In the planning world this imbalance of risk (or cost) and reward is endemic. People living near the elevated section of the M6, as it trundles through Birmingham, bear a heavy cost and yet enjoy no reward. They will have their council tax reduced and their properties may have been bought for less than similar properties. But for both those who lived there when the M6 was built, or those that live their now, neither receive ‘rents’ from those using the M6.
Something of the order of 150,000 vehicles use the elevated section every day according to the Highways Agency. If those residents living within 200 metres of the M6 collected a ‘rent’ equal to .1% of the value of that traffic that would be, at a conservative calculation, £1.5 million per day. I say conservative because it assumes the average vehicle value to be £10,000 but the Highways Agency states that most vehicles using the toll road are light-vehicles so a great number of trucks use the M6. An Iveco 18E240 truck costs in the region of £36,000.
I’m sure that would ease objections somewhat.
The planning process is an economic tool. It seeks to allow investment to take place - but at a reduced cost. If the cost of purchasing ‘agreement’ from those affected by the proposal was factored into the cost of investment I wonder how many developments would take place. This is, in effect, a subsidy. Those who are relatively powerless are denied their fair rate of return be it on view, or noise level, air quality or general quality of life. And as any economist will tell you, a subsidy distorts the market.
The rise in the number of phone masts is a direct result of the introduction of third-generation (3G) handsets. That is those that can send pictures or videos. The government in 2000 auctioned off part of the radio spectrum they owned so that mobile phone operators could introduce this technology.
As part of the deal the 3G operators had to provide at least 80% coverage. The coverage of a 3G signal is less than a 2G. This coverage falls as the number of users grows. Hence the increase in masts. The Mobile Operators Association puts the number of masts required as an extra 50,000 by the end of 2007.
However, the problems phone operators have had since they paid an excessive amount (£22.5 billion) for this spectrum have been immense. Vodafone, the world’s largest operator, hasn’t made a profit since 2000. The fact that technology can do something doesn’t automatically mean that the market wants it. People do wish to talk or text each other but watching TV on a minuscule screen is not many people’s idea of fun.
Had the building of the M6 elevated section required ‘rental’ payments to be factored in then another route might well have been chosen. Cost was obviously of concern in its building. The desire to cut costs resulted in the improper use of steel works that have now corroded. The constant repairs to this section are effectively attempts to re-build it. The damage done to Birmingham’s image by this monstrosity has been immense.
In any event, by paying such ‘rents’ the need for lengthy and expensive planning enquiries may well be avoided Unfortunately, mobile phone masts do not fall into this scenario.
Paying rent may reduce objections but that would make them unprofitable. In 2006 Vodafone made only 4% of turnover from 3G technology. But what is a fair rent? Well, only the market knows. The cost, including ‘rent’, required for one motorway route can be compared with an alternative. The siting of masts is pre-determined by geography, alternative sites rarely exist.
Planning proposals for mobile masts do not result in planning inquiries, so no cost savings there.
Charging a ‘rent’ for mast sites couldn’t work as it would put residents in a monopolistic position - something economists also object to. In fact that is the only legitimate role of government in the economy - to intervene when there is market failure (a monopoly). They impose a solution on behalf of society.
In short, mast installations are, generally, unopposable. No council can seriously oppose the planning request from companies desperate to get a return on their licence investment backed by governments desperate for the tax revenues such investment generates. Also, there is the desire of the government is for a switchover to digital TV channels. This is certainly driven by the fact that it will free up yet more spectrum. This, I’m sure, they hope can be also effectively auctioned off. Failure of 3G would impact that auction enormously.
In conclusion, the evidence is that any risk from mobile-phone masts is very small, especially when compared to the normal risks people run - driving cars, eating meat, sunbathing or normal radio and TV masts. That these risks, such as they are, are exaggerated by the fact that those running them have no particular reward for it. That society as a whole, as measured by economic factors, benefits and, as with cars, the benefits to the wider society of mobile technology outweigh the costs to the minority. More masts will therefore be built.