Withdrawal or rout?

So how do you categorise what we have done in Iraq? It appears that the Americans are not pleased with what they see as a retreat if not an acceptance of defeat. But what was our objective? As I understood it, it was to stabilise the situation, and then hand over to the Iraqis themselves - and that is exactly what we have done. The American problem is that they do not approve of the people to whom we have handed over. I'm afraid we're back to the old business of the US definition of democracy not being the will of the people, but being what suits the US. I think we have done, and are doing exactly the right thing. Given that there's no cohesive central government, if the southern Iraqis want to have close links with Iran, that's their business and nobody else's.

Through the round window...

Not sure about this EU ruling on Microsoft. On the one hand, my natural reaction is to say "hooray for the underdog", but on the other hand, my experience of the relatively recent rush to widen consumer choice is that it brings uncertainty and confusion into the market place, and far from being of automatic benefit to the consumer, can actually cause stress, anxiety and disappointment. A lot of people have switched suppliers of things like gas, electricity, telephones and the internet only to find that, despite assurances to the contrary, cheaper prices mean a much inferior service. And some people have even lost money when their new supplier has gone out of business. So the idea that this judgment means that there will be more consumer choice in the computer software market does not fill me with as much enthusiasm as it might once have done. I tend to stick with what I have got, provided I am happy with it, and will probably continue to do so.

...and a hard place

I have no money with Northern Rock, but if I did, would I be there queuing with the rest of them to get it out? I really don't know. My head says no, it's perfectly safe, but my heart says...? It is perhaps ironic that the "don't panic" statements by the Bank of England, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister, far from making me feel more secure, would have quite the opposite effect - think of the number of times we have been assured by those in power that there was no cause for concern, only for future events to prove that they were not only wrong, but knew they were wrong when they made those statements. So yes, chances are that I'd probably be in the queue!

Got any gum, chum?

Non-stick chewing gum - whatever next? Mind you, it's the bane of the street-cleaner's life. My local town recently repaved its central area, and within days the new paving was dotted with grey-white splodges - which are still there and multiplying. If this helps eradicate the problem then I'm all for it, although perhaps more emphasis should be put on stopping people dropping the stuff in the first place.

Just popping out for a drag.

Little snippet in a news item today - the indoor smoking ban seems to have resulted in an apparent increase in smokers in some workplaces. The reason of course is that now you can no longer smoke on the job, having a cigarette necessitates taking a break from work, and is thus an attractive proposition for many. Funny how things often have unforeseen consequences, isn't it?

Tuna chunks - warning, contains fish.

The Plain English people have been having a go at silly and unnecessary warning signs - their argument apparently being not only that they are a waste of time and money but also that we are bombarded with so many of them that we are likely to miss or ignore one that really matters - sort of like the little boy who cried wolf. You certainly wonder sometimes about the intelligence of the people who come up with these signs - or perhaps how unintelligent they think we are. A warning on a packet of sleeping tablets stating "may cause drowsiness" for example, or a fold-up push chair which warns you to remove the baby before folding it up. Is this down to stupidity or the fear of litigation?

Money, money,money.

The Wanless report on the NHS makes for thought-provoking reading - not so much for what it says about the NHS, but for what it says about this (and to a certain extent, the previous) Government's philosophy on the spending of public money. League tables, consumer choice, targets and payment by result means inevitably that those who are judged to be successful get more money and become more popular (though not necessarily better) and those who don't are doomed to a downward slide into failure. When you think about it, this so-called "market forces" philosophy is totally unsuitable for the delivery of a public service - be it health, education or whatever. An awful lot of money has been pumped into the NHS over the last few years, but thanks to this misguided approach, has produced proportionately little improvement. If Sir Derek Wanless can see this, why can't the politicians?

454 grams of potatoes, please.....

Thank goodness the EU has finally seen sense and abandoned its attempts to force metrication on the UK. I have posted before that I am sure, as my generation die out, metrication will take over - it's what's been taught in schools for decades now, and for many young people, the only system they are familiar with. But it should be for this country to decide if, when and how the change should be made, and this apparently is what the EU have finally recognised.

Shopping £3.40, parking £4.50.

A Conservative policy review is to suggest that supermarkets should be obliged to charge customers for parking. What a nerve! But wait - the review stresses that "charges would be no greater than the amount people would pay in the nearest town centre". So that's all right then - just an arm and a leg! This connects somewhat with yesterday's post - there's an increasing tendency these days for politicians to use the concept of being "green" to interfere more and more in how we live our lives - and I for one don't like it.

Tuck box police?

OK, too much junk food is bad for kids, but just how far should official policy go in discouraging it? Apparently plans are afoot here in the Midlands to give Heads of schools authority to ban sweets and crisps from school lunch boxes and to remove the temptation to go down the local chippie by preventing students from leaving the school premises at lunchtime. Methinks this goes too far. I would certainly be incensed as a parent if the contents of my child's lunch box was being censored. And what's going to happen anyway? If they're that way inclined, they're going to fill up with crisps and sweets when they get home, aren't they? And what's he matter with the odd bag of crisps anyway? Things have come to a pretty pass when you can't give your kids the occasional treat. It seems to be one of those things where the many are being punished for the sins of the few.