The Three party slogans for the general election are now out. First came the Conservatives with
Then Labour’s
and then unable to choose between the first two they are amalgamated into the Lib Dem
Interestingly on a blue background. Presumably in Tory marginals the first one phrase will be used and the second one in Labour marginals.
a) The background of the Lib Dem strapline isn’t blue, it’s turquoise at best.
b) If you looked at a colour wheel, used by designers, you’d know that turquoise is opposite LibDem orange, and is a contrasting colour.
If we’re reading this much into party colours, is the red in the Labour logo still symbolic for blood? And is that Afghan, Iraqi, or that of British citizens sent for extreme rendition?
I am working on the strapline
a fun fair for all
You can listen to George W. Bush saying that:
http://www.idyacy.com/output/5fe327b3bfb1118c4ba3fcc7a31a6572.swf
(Requires Flash. Don’t know if this link will still be active when anyone clicks it.)
Further research indicates that the LibDems are actually part of a foul plot by hatched by the League of Complementary Colourists:
http://theabyssgazes.blogspot.com/2010/03/teal-and-orange-hollywood-please-stop.html
I’ve seen that meme going around.
One thing I hate is websites with a black background because it makes the colours pop and everything look edgy. They’re often the websites with the least to say and a community that acts like they’re on a sugar high. They also rarely come up with a better alternative and the comment is me-too because that would require originality and hard work.
A certain shall-not-be-named barrel scraping politics blog fits this template. Coincidence? I think not.
None of that branding does anything for me. If British politics is a “smashable brand” it’s crap all the way through like a stick of rock. Bristol is an even bigger joke.
I had a dripping gas boiler in my bedroom and no heating or hot water for six months. Couldn’t sleep properly. Didn’t eat properly. Froze my ass off. Nobody cared cuz they got paid whatever happened. But, that’s okay. We got a nice slogan.
I wonder what Doctor Jon Rogers and Stephen “you have to get off your ass” Wiliiams has to say about that…
Here’s mine: “Deliver or GTFO”.
More reality behind the brand:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8564632.stm
I know management and retail and when I wrote to Stephen Williams to complain about the quality and range of products, and customer service at Somerfield he defended it. Only a couple of weeks later there was a scandal over behaviour of the warehouse staff that was reported in the Evening Post and Somerfield has since been bought out by the Co-op.
Jon Rogers supported property deals with housing associations that rewarded bad management while not acting on the misery of neighbours from hell. He applauded the booze trade while Bristol now economically slumps and studies reported in the Evening Post show it’s been left picking up the tab for severe alcohol related health problems.
Steve’s an accountant and Jon’s a doctor? Well, if I judged them by what they *did* letting business crash and people die doesn’t square with that. But, it’s the reality behind the slogan, behind the campaigning, and behind the policies that I’ve experienced. It’s the *truth* I see even if they deny it or don’t want to hear it.
“Deliver or GTFO”.
@C
“I wrote to Stephen Williams to complain about the quality and range of products, and customer service at Somerfield he defended it.”
I’m puzzled as to why you believed writing to your MP would have any effect on the standard of customer service or quality, and range of goods for sale at a private sector supermarket chain. Surely the most appropriate target for your ire would be Somerfield senior management, or taking your custom elsewhere as a last resort?
It was important to me because I believe in good management and customer service. Why does Stephen Williams posture and poke his nose into similar things when it suits him? That’s no more or less important. The guy claims to be some sort of leader and shopped there, and he defended a failing company.
Competition has failed in the UK. Retailers like Tescos offer limited ranges and quality of food in comparison to other countries. Prices are manipulated to break the link between price and value. Local shops suffer with planning and distribution. Customer service standards are in the sink. It’s not even a secret. EVERYONE knows it.
Did Steve show a shred of interest in the law, regulation, and policing of standards? Nope. That’s a failure right there for a guy who’s fulfilling the role of MP. No, just carry on and pretend it doesn’t exist. Close your eyes hard enough and the problem will go away – the glossy branding might even hide the human suffering behind the scenes.
One of the big problems with Britain is people don’t aim high enough or really care. Whether that’s an individual or collection issue depends but unless someone at the top makes it an issue and digs behind the wall of bullshit nothing will change, and failed organisations will continue to run themselves and everyone else into the ground.
Did you read Stephen William’s inaugural address to Parliament in Hansard? Box ticking, people pleasing, high fallutin’, passive anger waffle. Tales of Bristols past glory, holding hands like we’re one world, dizzying aspirations, and tear jerking embracing of the people. But, what did he do? Nothing. Who did he listen to? Nobody.
“Deliver or GTFO”.
@C
“Competition has failed in the UK. Retailers like Tescos offer limited ranges and quality of food in comparison to other countries. Prices are manipulated to break the link between price and value. Local shops suffer with planning and distribution. Customer service standards are in the sink. It’s not even a secret. EVERYONE knows it.”
I don’t see it so much as competition having failed, but rather that education and information distribution have failed. These elements are important in an efficient market and allowing rational decisions to be made, as recognised by Adam Smith. The majority of people don’t seem research their purchases, however, but instead adopt one of three strategies:
i) Buying purely on price, disregarding issues such as production conditions, nutritional content and so on. “It’s all the same rubbish after all, so why pay more than I have to?”
ii) Buying based on a single (usually oversimplified) metric, whether it’s BHP, Watts, MHz, Megapixels or grams of Fat.
iii) Asking the vendor for advice, because “they’re the expert”. Actually, they’re usually just experts in selling stuff, and their interests are not necessarily aligned with the buyer’s. Assume they’ll recommend the product that’s in their best interest to sell (e.g. because they’re trying to clear it, or it has the best margin) and you won’t go far wrong. Of course, there are some vendors who recognise a more long-term view that a happy customer is worth more to them than a dis- or barely-satisfied one!
With regard to the range found in Tesco or any other supermarket, it looked much the same to the range offered by Albert Heijn in Amsterdam, the only time I’ve used a supermarket outside the UK. Without having Eastgate/Filton/Longwell Green “big box” stores that require a car to access, it’s hard to see how urban stores can stock a signifcantly greater range of goods.
Prices are always set at an optimum level between profitability and being lower than enough customers’ subjective value for the product. Do you perhaps mean ‘production cost’ rather than ‘value’? If so, should vendors be prohibited from selling at near- or below-cost? Or would you rather that they be legally forced to sell certain goods at a legally-designated maximum price even if they made little, or even negative profit? (a la Venezuela under Chavez)
I’m more in favour of educating buyers to be able to see the child labour behind the cheap trainers, or the conditions of the battery chickens, and determine for themselves that some low prices just aren’t worth it. If enough people do that, the products will go unsold, and the vendors will discontinue them.
Finally, many local and independent shops fail to deliver a quality of goods and service even as good as an average supermarket. A greengrocer near me complains that the showcase bus route and Tesco reduces his business, but fails to notice that much of his produce is both less fresh and more expensive than the supermarket. Greengrocery is nearly the simplest business model in the world; buy good quality produce, add a markup, sell as quickly as possible, replace with similarly good quality produce and throw away produce that’s gone off. Attempting to save a few pence by selling customers rotten produce won’t win repeat custom!
Independent shops have also been slow to adapt to changing demographics; the opening hours of many seem to have ignored the fact that the majority of contemporary households have all adults working, and they cannot shop during the working day. I’m inclined to shop from independents when possible, but if their quality is poor, the range is the same as at a supermarket, or they simply aren’t open, then I won’t – or won’t more often than the occasional Saturday.
Alex
I refer you to my previous post
an innumerate population is easy to fool – one Britain’s most successful sectors are the loan sharks and companies like Brighthouse because people don’t understand compound interest.
No argument from me there.
The only thing I’d point out is that for some people, in some circumstances, and with their personal set of priorities, a credit deal from somewhere like Brighthouse may well be the very best deal for them. That may well be a tiny minority compared with the size of their current customer base.
Of course with all the “good risks” taking themselves out of the customer pool by realising they’re better off saving up for goods, that’ll probably leave the remaining pool as a worse average risk, implying higher default rates, and therefore even higher interest rates than presently – and/or a much more intrusive credit scoring process.
As long as the loan terms are legal and clearly spelt out at the time of the deal, however, then I respect the individual’s right to know (from a position of numeracy and rationality, as opposed to the current situation) what’s best for them and make the deal.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/2010-the-mother-of-all-elections-1921169.html
I was going to comment on something else but noticed this article on courting the mum’s vote. Two issues: why is there a discriminatory pitch to this, and why does is ignore people on welfare? While this bill may be a step forward in practical terms at the presentational level it’s another kick in the teeth for men and the unemployed. Another issue is that pensions don’t take into account unemployment so victims of Thatcherite economics and the politics of poverty get another kick in the face.
How can I feel positive about myself when it’s always (some other) special interest group getting all the pep talk? How can I ease myself back into work when the demands of fulltime work and the penalties built in to the welfare system make it financially unviable? Why should I subsidise the pensions of people who’ve had a lifetime of work and higher incomes at my expense? If you’re a man and unemployed there’s nothing equal or opportunity about this bill.
That sounds like the sort of crap you get from any identikit CEO. It neatly circumvents discussions about the abuse of market power, the low wage economy, and where the gains of progress are felt. I could make similar comments about the intellectual property industries. Anything else is wilful blindness in perpetuating poverty.
@C
“That sounds like the sort of crap you get from any identikit CEO.”
I would hope not; much of my thinking about the market has been influenced by Joseph Stiglitz’ “The Roaring 90s”. That’s what introduced me to the idea of imperfect information and made me passionate about wanting to improve such situations, and crystallised my thoughts about market failures when there are perverse incentives.
“…and where the gains of progress are felt.”
But in the developed world, it’s almost impossible to talk about absolute poverty except for a small minority of the most desperate cases. Instead, we must talk about relative poverty, which is something else entirely. That change has been brought about somewhat by the state (I’d place the NHS as being one of the most influential actors here) but to an equal – if not greater – extent, the market improving efficiency and reducing prices (as well as providing taxes to fund things like the NHS).
The greatest challenge, I feel, to senior managers of public companies is to realise that sometimes the shareholders’ best interests (which, legally, they must act to promote) are best served by taking a long-term view. They should have the moral courage to make such a case when making decisions; it would help if their incentives were so aligned, of course!
I didn’t disagree with what you said but it only told half the story. It’s like taking David Putnam’s speech and sawing it in half. The poor (or customers and society) is given a low priority. It’s almost an afterthought.
I’m not against leadership, the markets, or tackling challenges. Indeed, the three formative books I recommended in “Don’t Believe What You Read” touch on all three areas.
Relative poverty is a fashionable term. In meaningful terms I’m poor. I’ve been stamped on and upset in a serious way and my life has gone down the shitter. You can’t get more absolute than that.
One big problem you identify is the quality to quarter view of finance. By not admitting mistakes and paying a minimal amount to fix the problem’s I experienced how much money has been wasted in the long term?
I was looking for a job a few years ago. The Phd head of IT didn’t like my plan of going in as a hitman because of the politics. The guy he buckpassed me too was a cleverdick who wanted a slave. During that time I assessed they were screwing millions and their corporate culture was messed up. Of course, I didn’t get a job but if I was so dumb how come the evening post splashed on this scandal two years later?
My argument is that top management and the middle layers are responsible for poverty. Any money going in gets spent on slick reports, more staff, and shiny toys but nothing changes. In fact, all it seems to end up doing is rewarding and reinforcing failure.
My housing association couldn’t admit doing anything wrong. The higher up the chain it got the more they lied. (The CEO’s response is pathetic). I was landed with neighbours from hell and nobody factored in the impact on my life. (“You can’t tell people what to do”). I was even told at one point that if I didn’t like it I should find somewhere else to live. WTF?
I am not a priority. I have no status. I don’t have the resources. The market doesn’t work for me. All I see is abuses of power and greed. This can make you feel very hard an cynical if you let it. But, when I see these heroes of capitalism and random whiners scream about the economic crisis I laugh. They can dish it out but can’t take it.
Bit of an update here:
I’m just fresh back from a discussion with a local retailer. Some key issues we touched on were being too close to the problem, getting ideas, and the old one of parting with the cash to make it happen.
Had similar problems with people in my family who were in farming. Looking at Google Maps and Streetview the farm is now gone and replaced by lots of posh houses. Very nice but no farm.
A key strategic weakness of Britain is poor innovation and relating to people. You see this at all levels and across the country. Britain doesn’t “get” Silicon Valley and people with drive are left feeling we were born in the wrong country.
The cleverness of creative accounting isn’t innovation nor are the NIMBY attitudes social. In fact, this Conservative style mindset is exactly what’s holding Britain back. We need to focus much more on doing and bringing people together.
I would argue that stamping on and excluding the working class and unemployed is symptomatic of the lack of “do” and “inclusiveness”. However, by shifting *focus* things can change in a *simple* and *meaningful* way, and get us to where we should be.
More reality behind the brand:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/janet-street-porter/editoratlarge-three-cheers-for-our-clever-funny-generation-y-1921027.html
There’s problems with education and attitudes but this is another “kick the victim” response from Masters of the Universe. No, don’t admit you made mistakes or treat people like dirt. That would be too obvious.
Where’s the problem solving ability of creating the jobs people want to do? Where’s the inclusive teamwork attitude that encourages people to be part of a solution? Where’s the tempering of fat cat shareholders by investing in the future?
I know stuff and am in touch so why izzit theeze pipple get nighthoods, the gentle PR, and the stratospheric bonuses? Why is it that politicians and the media snuggle up in a cosy cartel with these people to peddle the failed language and goals of yesterday?
Gordon Brown said: “I’m here because I want the jobs that you were talking about, I want the better health service that you wanted to talk about, I want to protect the victim that you were talking about, I want communities to be safe and I want people to feel that their potential is being realised.”
Is this just peddling a brand with more words? I’d like to think it isn’t but until the impact of those words is felt by me that change hasn’t happened. How long have I waited since “Respect and Responsibility” was a headline. How much longer do I have to wait (and suffer).
C
Oh dear now I’m George Bush?
I was just reading through Popular Science and came across a link. I’m not very good at making up jokes but thought it was a bit of fun.
Lots of stuff in there about energy technologies. Just came across one for lightbulbs with a 90% index. Currently the best “daylight bulbs” used for colour matching are 95%.
http://www.rti.org/news.cfm?nav=87&objectid=4709DD21-5056-B172-B869E9328CBED59F