Blair playing a blinder

[xxxx]

xxxx
I agree that we are also pre-disposed to cooperate and this improves our competitiveness e.g. in a football team we are more successful if we have strikers, defenders and a goalie all working together.

We are pre-disposed to cooperate to improve outcomes in general, not solely because it increases the abstract quality of 'competitiveness'.

We still compete everyday whether it's against the weather, for food (especially in the poorer countries), other teams, other companies.

I think, and this was my original point, you overstress the amount, importance and benefits found in our modern world.
I haven't noticed anyone 'competing' for food or weather (?) round here lately. In third world countries people are denied access to food, they have no way of competing for the food that is there.
Most 'industries' will do anything to avoid competition; it's a waste of energy that distracts from the production of profits. It has long been recognised as a vexing problem in economics (cartels,monopolies,monopsonies etc are great example of the overwhelming disposition to cooperate) that 'industry' will not voluntarily compete.

The West did not rise on the merits of its products, but the strength of its armies and the protectionism they could provide.
When actual competition arises, our industries seem to throw the towel in.

Competition is great for deciding who can run 100m a few hundredths of a second faster than the second quickest person in the world on a given day, or building a better mousetrap (though intellectual property rights, as demanded by 'industry', will soon put paid to the latter activity). As an organising principle for life, its not that important or valuable.

'Competition' is basically just a romantic bedtime story to keep the saps in line. Its very important that they don't compete with ‘industry's' interests so great energy is poured into the promotion of inter personal competion.

Let's teach our kids competition and cooperation, including living in society and with industry and commerce. This is why I would want them to cooperate with Industry and Commerce, including sponsorship.

No lets not teach them because:
a) there is nothing to teach; 'industry','business' and 'commerce' are not monolithic entities within society with a single, valuable body of knowledge for our youth.
A glance at the business section in any bookshop will show the ever growing market for people claiming to supply the secret of business success, there are no clear winners (or proven products) in this category yet.

b) Childhood is too short as it is. They're going to live the rest of their lives in a world of business, let them work it out then.

c) The current generation of success stories seem to have managed fine without 'business intervention' in their education

d) 'Business' doesn't know what it wants from one year to the next, one year its call centre staff, another its plumbers, the next might be neither. Do you want squander a childhood on short term considerations?

If we strive for an inclusive society, education should teach kids about including all aspects of the society in which they will be living.

All for that , a rounded, liberal education is my ideal. The crude reductionism of 'business knows best' is its antithesis. Westminster Gradgrinds such as Charles Clarke might see the study of history as a self indulgent waste of time, I do not. It's just about the only antidote to the whiggish mindset we are encouraged into.

[Cynthia]

Another chance to campaign to End the Occupation of Iraq by Christmas, Bring the Troops Home, and NO to another War in Iran,Syria or anywhere else Bush/Blair project has their eyes on ..... this demo is on your doorstep (again) - no excuses now not to go.....

End the Occupation of Iraq.
Bring the Troops Home. Defend Civil Liberties.
All Scotland Demonstration
Sat 12th November
Assemble 12 noon Parliament Square, Edinburgh

called by Edinburgh Stop the War Coaltion
supported by SCND and Muslim Association of Britain

AND

Public meeting - Bring the Troops Home Now
Edinburgh: Thurs 10th Nov, 7pm, Lecture Theatre 2, Appleton Tower, Edinburgh Uni,
with Rose Gentle, Colin Fox MSP + SSP convenor, Lindsey German, Sohaib Saeed (MAB), Yasmin (People and Planet), SNP invited.

[Cynthia]

Another example of the dangers of Blair's 'special relationship' with Bush ----

see Evg News Article at

http://news.scotsman.com/latest_uk.cfm?id=2280922005

'Blair talked Bush out of bombing'

There were calls for Downing Street to publish the transcript of a conversation between Tony Blair and US President George Bush, amid claims that the Prime Minister persuaded Mr Bush not to launch a military strike on a TV station in a friendly Arab state.

According to unnamed sources quoted in the Daily Mirror, the memo - stamped Top Secret - records Mr Bush suggesting that he might order the bombing of Al-Jazeera's studios in Qatar etc.....

Carla

[Dadaist]

I would understand the dangers if the headline had been "Blair talked Bush *into* bombing" but not the other way round!!!

I wonder if they prayed together.

[xxxx]

Re: The monday newsnight article about us/british stitching up iraq's oilfields for the next thirty years(summary here):

it is one of the most absurd conspiracy theories that we have to face in relation to this matter. If all that Britain, America or any other country wanted was greater access to Iraqi oil, Saddam Hussein would give us that..

From Hansard 14/2/2003 speaker : Prime Minister Tony Blair

Of course it wasn't about oil, it was about WMD's, torture, gassing people and all those other horrible things they used to do in countries with large oil reserves.

You don't have to believe his lies, but you can't help respect the way he tells 'em.

[Gemini]

it is one of the most absurd conspiracy theories that we have to face in relation to this matter. If all that Britain, America or any other country wanted was greater access to Iraqi oil, Saddam Hussein would give us that..

From Hansard 14/2/2003 speaker : Prime Minister Tony Blair

Of course it wasn't about oil, it was about WMD's, torture, gassing people and all those other horrible things they used to do in countries with large oil reserves.

You don't have to believe his lies, but you can't help respect the way he tells 'em.

Respect is earned - IMHO, TB is not deserving of respect, nor his Government.

[Dadaist]

Gemini

I would say rather that trust was betrayed, in the case of TB.

My main criticism of him always was the difference between the initial promise of an ethical foreign policy and the goods which were delivered, which in tesco.com terms were definitely outwith the boundaries of a valid substitution.

[Porty]

Of course it wasn't about oil, it was about WMD's, torture, gassing people and all those other horrible things they used to do in countries with large oil reserves.

The war was about all of those things, including oil, but we should never have got involved.

[Dadaist]

Channel 4 are showing a bunch of "Dispatches" programmes this week which deal with this dirty war.

Tonight at 11.10 Andrew Gillingham reports on allegations that the US are kidnapping terror suspects.

Admittedly C4 will be showing the latest american entertainment product at 9pm, whatever it's called, before laying into the yankees later on!!

[Porty]

Channel 4 are showing a bunch of "Dispatches" programmes this week which deal with this dirty war.

I almost text you last night, when watching. I spilled my cocoa when Dr someone, who was a prosthetic specialist, proudly announced that with the improvements made in prosthetics he anticipated beng able to send 40% of amputees back into battle. Some of the amputees seemed to think that was ok.

[Dadaist]

yeah i wish i had seen that one. someone here told me about it and said that even the interviewer was a bit gobsmacked.

[xxxx]

Of course it wasn't about oil, it was about WMD's, torture, gassing people and all those other horrible things they used to do in countries with large oil reserves.

The war was about all of those things, including oil, but we should never have got involved.

I'm recalling what was said in justification.
The war was not about WMDs because their weren't any, the hallabjah gassing happened years before the first gulf invasion and not much of a fuss was made at the time. The torture continued under the new management so that only leaves two things: oil and israeli security.
When baghdad was beset by looters in the first days of liberation, the oil ministry was the only building placed under guard. Hospitals,other govt buildings could go whistle.

However the prime minister, the man who campaigned incessantly about the false reasons, dismissed the real ones as conspiracy theories.

It all depends which conspiracy you want to choose, the one where all parties involved conspire to bring happiness and justice to a benighted and faraway land or the one where they conspire to seize valuable resources.

I can't think of many wars that were started for the former reasons, maybe this one was an exception

[Porty]

However, he had used WMD, he did gas and he did murder. they may well have been regurgitated but the UN certainly knew he had breached resolutions. If Saddam not opened the window there would have been no excuse whatsoever to go in. He provided the excuse and unluckily for him Bush took it along with Blair.

On the same basis as your argument you could say that the War wasnt about Oil, as the US were getting a huge amount of it anyway.

You mention Israel and it has reminded me that I didn't respond to the "International law is an ass" comment you made, over on the xxxx doesn't want to do hair-spliitting thread. You are correct, the law is not the ass, the fact that it cannot be effectively enforced makes it an ass.

[xxxx]

However, he had used WMD, he did gas and he did murder. they may well have been regurgitated but the UN certainly knew he had breached resolutions. If Saddam not opened the window there would have been no excuse whatsoever to go in. He provided the excuse and unluckily for him Bush took it along with Blair.

You don't get 'excuses' to invade another country

Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter prohibits any nation from using force against another. The charter allows for only two exceptions to this rule: when force is required in self-defense (Article 51) or when the Security Council authorizes the use of force to protect international peace and security (Chapter VII).

Saddam, but mainly his people, were already being punished for past crimes by an extremely cruel and prolonged sanctions regime. 1/2 million deaths according to the WHO. A 'price worth paying' according to US Secretary of State Madeline Albright

There was an effort to get security council authorisation, but as it was destined to fail (There were no threats to international peace from a shattered and starved country), the coalition forces acted illegally anyway

On the same basis as your argument you could say that the War wasnt about Oil, as the US were getting a huge amount of it anyway.

These things are about control, not access. Thats why the world has to pay for oil in dollars, not our own currencies.

You mention Israel and it has reminded me that I didn't respond to the "International law is an ass" comment you made, over on the xxxx doesn't want to do hair-spliitting thread. You are correct, the law is not the ass, the fact that it cannot be effectively enforced makes it an ass.

It doesn't make it an ass, it makes it ignored.

[Porty]

You don't get 'excuses' to invade another country

Im afraid you do, its just that some people call them reasons.

I accept that law is not the ass and that it is simply ignored, therfore when it comes to policing its about as useful as an ass or a donkey. You call it what you will?

[xxxx]

You don't get 'excuses' to invade another country

Im afraid you do, its just that some people call them reasons.

Whatever you call them, it doesn't make them legal justifications.

As to laws, I cannot help but agree with Swift:

Laws are like cobwebs, which may catch small flies, but let wasps and hornets break through.

However, I look forward to the time when this is not always so.

[Porty]

I agree, there is no legal justification.

[xxxx]

I agree, there is no legal justification.

I don't think its too much to ask when you're going to waste 100,000 iraqis, 2200 soldiers, injure many more, destroy civil society,drop cluster bombs for children to play with and create an eternally toxic landscape with depleted uranium.
Maybe I'm too much of a softy on these matters.

[Porty]

I wonder if it is possible to actually get legal justification to invade and occupy? Permission to bomb please?

One thing that is very pertinent is that US citizens or cities have never been bombed.

They have a movie experience and that's about it. We should know better, we have oodles of previous experience.

At least War served a useful purpose for quashing the Nazi's for a few decades.

[xxxx]

I wonder if it is possible to actually get legal justification to invade and occupy? Permission to bomb please?

The legal justification is quoted in a previous post from the UN charter; imminent threat or security council authorisation

One thing that is very pertinent is that US citizens or cities have never been bombed.

They have a movie experience and that's about it. We should know better, we have oodles of previous experience.

At least War served a useful purpose for quashing the Nazi's for a few decades.

Comparing the remembrance day ceremonies with our PM's enthusiasm for war, I wonder if he can connect with the awful reality rather than the 'romance' of it all any more than the US mainland.
While wars might have welcome side effects, they don't seem to be a good way of going about things.

[Dadaist]

I think competition is good and should be introduced into Schools as early as possible. We are genetically pre-disposed to compete.

"If my competitor were drowning I'd stick a hose in his mouth and turn on the water".

- Ray Kroc, founder of McDonalds.

[Porty]

"If my competitor were drowning I'd stick a hose in his mouth and turn on the water".

- Ray Kroc, founder of McDonalds.

Doesn't make particulalry pleasant reading but one still has to admire many of McDonalds achievements and the custodianship of their Franchisees. They are truly an awesome organisation.

[Dadaist]

"If my competitor were drowning I'd stick a hose in his mouth and turn on the water".

- Ray Kroc, founder of McDonalds.

one still has to admire many of McDonalds achievements and the custodianship of their Franchisees

not this "one". i don't have to admire anything. you can admire what you want.

[Porty]

You are right, you don't have to admire anything. And similarly I am not saying I admire everything they do, not by a long way, but they have a fantastic business model.

[Dadaist]

You are right, you don't have to admire anything. And similarly I am not saying I admire everything they do, not by a long way, but they have a fantastic business model.

I thought that you thought that franchising in general wasn't ideal?

Obviously theirs works - why do some/a lot of franchises fail?

I know you get bad franchises - and I don't mean in an anti-capitalist way (we won't go there, it's xmas) but in terms of the agents misleading the potential franchisee as to how much their earnings will be.

[Porty]

I thought that you thought that franchising in general wasn't ideal?

Franchising can work, Mcdonalds have proved it. However, it is very, very difficult to get the balance right between Franchiser and Franchisee. Having had two experiences of being a franchisee, one with a well-intentioned, blue-chip, multinational company and the other with a company run by a chancer that was only interested in selling franchises. I would not choose the franchsing route again.

Obviously theirs works - why do some/a lot of franchises fail?

The list of reasons why a franchise may fail is infinite. The question is probably best answered by looking at why McD's works? I could wax lyrical but to be succinct:

1) They take a long-term view. They genuinely want their franchisees to make money and they have a formula that will insure that they will make money. For example: if a franchisee is working hard and meeting standards but is failing because their turnover to rent ratio is out. Mcd's will step in and subsidise the rent. They realise that if the franchise or site is there for 30 or 40 or 50 years a hit in profits for them is worth it.

A franchisee never makes the whole investment in a McD restaurant. It is a genuine partnership. McD usually take most of the risk in the project a 60/40 split.

2) They are very, very careful about who they select as Franchisee's. Either you have to have worked for the company for a very long time and they know you inside out or you have to invest £200,000, which must be unencumbered. In the latter case your money is not good enough on its own. You must undergo 6 to 8 months working unpaid in a restaurant. You learn about the business and they learn about you.

3) I met a major McD dude once in formal situation and we chatted about being a McD franchisee. I asked if one could get lucky and get rich from one McD franchise. He replied "It is possible but McDonalds don't do lucky" In other words he was saying our formula is refined, you won't lose but you won't win big.

I know you get bad franchises - and I don't mean in an anti-capitalist way (we won't go there, it's xmas) but in terms of the agents misleading the potential franchisee as to how much their earnings will be.

This is one of the main issues in Franchising. Franchise owners employ third parties to sell their franchises. There is no accountability. Often a franchisee fee is small, maybe £7500 to £50,000. if it all goes wrong it is unlikely that the loser will sue or will even have grounds for suing. The franchise sellers never meet disgruntled franchisees, never divulge sales or cost figures, franchises are sold on homgoenous business plans that bear little or no relation to the franchise that is being sold.

It is not just agents that do this, it is a deliberate policy of some franchise owners.

Example (any resemblance is purely coincidental)

Company P buys a public house in portobello. They buy it on the strength of the turnover, which they know historically speaking is £300,000. They pay £300,000 for the pub. They know their business well and believe they can pay a manager, staff and rent (interest on the £300,000) etc and make a £40k profit. In the example above the annual rent could be calculated at about £20,000 per annum. Which represents the cost of borrowing the £300k to buy the pub.

They also believe that if they spend £200,000 doing the place up, they could increase the turnover by £200,000 and increase profit by £50,000 to £90,000. So what do they do? Do they take the risk themselves?

No, they advertise for a franchisee. Promising support and discounted beer prices and perhaps a bit of brand recognition. It is a very good deal for them. They immediately save a managers salary. A condition of awarding the franchise is that the franchisee puts up the £200,000 improvement costs. So he is burdened by the borrowing cost of that £200,000, which will be about £14,000 per annum. Company P benefits from the improvements and anticipation sets the rental value for a pub turning over £500,000 not £300,000. So rent increases from £20,000 to say £40,000. This is usually done before advertising the franchise.

The franchise holder moves in, Company P now have a new pub, are making £20,000 profit on rent and saving perhaps £25,000 on a managers salary. Before any increase in turnover, they have a refurbished pub and are making a bigger profit BEFORE the profit they make on selling goods to the franchisee. They could be making £85-90K when they were previoulsy only making £40k.

What's in it for the franchisee?

Company P tell the franchsee that he can expect turnover of £500,000 or perhaps even more. The franchsee works out that he can make a £70,000 profit, which seems like a good return on his £200,000 investment and a reward for the time he will have to devote to it.

Company P do not guarantee the £500k turnover, make much of their expertise but simultaneously advise him to do his own research. If sales do reach £500,000 then the franchisee could make money, he could pay the cost of his borrowing, keep the managers salary and keep the margin that the company allow him on the stock that they sell him. Company P will likely make 50 -70% more money than they would have done had they developed the pub themselves and have taken no risk whatsoever. It is less risky to keep a pub closed, whilst they find a franchsiee, than to risk their own money. If Company P are really unscrupulous they will even take a profit on the £200k refurbishment cost.

The problem will arise if the anticipated rise in turnover does not materialise. The franchisee will find himself on little more than a managers salary (maybe even worse) having invested hugely and having bought a pup from people who knew a lot more about the business than he did. When he find himself in trouble, they will remind him that they offered no guarantee and encouraged him to do his own research. Eventually he will run up a credit tab with company P and they will tear up his franchise agreement.

It would not be difficult to become a franchisee for Company P. All you need is the money, no criminal record and be over 21.

[Pal of Porty]

An excellent account of how a Franchisor could behave towards a Franchisee but at least we know this kind of thing could never go on in Portobello.

[Dadaist]

Absolutely fascinating. Time and effort authoring that appreciated, sir.

[Porty]

An excellent account of how a Franchisor could behave towards a Franchisee but at least we know this kind of thing could never go on in Portobello.

I'm not sure. Contrast how McDonalds would behave if they decided to open a franchised store in Porty with the strategy that say a Pub franchisor may adopt here.

McDonalds would find a site in Portobello and support a franchisee. They would recognise that it is a small market, would respect that a franchisee is willing to take the investment risk and as a result would be very unlikely to create another franchise in the area, recognising that one outlet would cannibalise the sales of the other, endangering the financial well-being of each franchisee. If Mcdonalds were an uncaring franchisor they would perhaps open another store and say "well its more sales for us, the franchisee can look after themselves". McDonalds would not do so in a market the size of Portobello, as they have too much time and company monery invested in each outlet. They want Win:Win. McDonalds want a consistent brand image, which is nigh impossible to achieve unless a franchise is succesful.

What about a franchsed pub chain? It is not inconcievable that a pub chain may have 4 or 5 sites in a place the size of portobello. If they ever sold all of the franchises they would have 5 franchisees competing in a tough, restricted market . The pub chain would secure substantial investments from each franchisee and then set one off against the other. Regardlesss of how well or poorly each Franchise does, the net effect is the pub chain sell more beer. All at very little financial risk to themselves and at even less risk to their brand, as the brand usually remains hidden from the paying customer until its franchise selling time.

If a franchising business wanted 5 outllets in a place like Portobello I would see this as a major question mark over their commitment to their franchisees. Wouldn't you?

I notice that one franchised pub chain, (Punch?) has 3 outlets up for franchise in this area, all of which are closed at the moment. I overheard a conversation in the ormelie about this very subject, the other night. I have no way of verifying the authenticity of the statements.

This bloke, who seemed very knowledgeable, was saying that Punch like their pubs to be closed for a period before selling to a franchisee, for three reasons. Firstly, a period of closure means that there is no recent track record of sales, so they can make statements about potential turnover without much accountability. Secondly, the lack of evidenced sales prior to the selling of a franchise reduces the risk of legal action should sales projections fall far short of estimate. Thirdly, a period of closure breaks the rental chain and hikes in rent can be masked.

I guess what the guy is saying is: It is a lot easier use POTENTIAL sales to persuade someone to invest ln a pub franchise than the ACTUAL trading figures of the establishment.

This may be rubbish of course. I have no data on the attrition rate for punch franchisees. There will no doubt be quite a lot of punch successes but I wonder what the average business life expectancy is for a Punch franchisee?

Brian do you know?

[Gemini]

Seems Tony is still playing his Blinder's!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 91,00.html


http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 1.1-4.html

[Gemini]

Is it time for them all to Go?


http://election.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=478

[rathbone]

No, because you'd get the other lot in and they are ten times worse.

[Dadaist]

No, because you'd get the other lot in and they are ten times worse.

In terms of the welfare state - perhaps.

In terms of being racists and homophobes - yes.

In terms of dropping TNT on kids in foreign countries - they are the same.

John Smith is dead, Robin "ethical foreign policy" Cook is dead. Prescott is out.

Jack Straw used to go on CND marches. Ho hum. I wonder if there is any difference in either lot when it comes to whether to renew Trident.

Yes, I think the sad fact is you're right, Rathbone.

As an aside - what do you think of the way the press are getting at Blair through his ministers - do you think it's co-ordinated in any way and do you think they have been sitting on some of these "revelations" until they had a good hand?

Brown still seems to have nothing on him, apart from probably wishing he was on the other side of the world from the rest of the leadership!

I wonder how long that will last.

[wangi]

Brown still seems to have nothing on him

Including charisma ;)

[Dadaist]

Brown still seems to have nothing on him

Including charisma

Yeah I know. There was nothing on Major until we found out about Edwina years later - until then the worst was his spitting image puppet liking peas.