UK Toddlers Tea-Time Tantrums

If I had a pound for every time I’ve had to explain to my four year old that biscuits are not a vegetable, I could probably afford someone else to feed him. However, I am now mildly relieved to learn that we are by no means alone in our daily dinner time dogfight, but merely part of a national nutritional nightmare.

Research by the European Toddler Nutrition Index, as reported by Sky News, reveals that 43% of UK parents end up allowing their offspring to veto certain food groups, whereas in France the figure is a more modest 33%. And 26% of our under fives apparently refuse meals at least once a day, their continental cousins declining just 15%.

Maybe French food just tastes better, so toddlers don’t complain, or it may be that our processes and not our products are at fault. Perhaps in current culture, our approach to all things culinary leaves us increasingly in need of a crash course in meal-time management for our minors. In her book ‘French Kids Eat Everything’, Karen Le Billon transplants her two picky-eating kids from North America, to a small town in France. After initial resistance, the family embraced the complex culture of French cuisine and emerged a healthier herd for it, so maybe we should all follow suit?

Now, the hardest hurdle for parents on this side of the channel may be the strict ‘no-snacking rule’. It turns out French kids are far less likely to refuse their food because they are famished. It makes sense. If your nippers are full of crisps and cookies by the time they get to the table at tea-time, it’s no surprise they give their carrots the cold shoulder.

Le Billon was also banned from providing a packed lunch for her school aged offspring, a source of major sinning on this side of La Manche. Certainly, my daughter delights in dishing the dining dirt on those classmates whose packed lunches are clearly prepared with no more effort than the hurling together of a collection of coloured packets. A daily duty we both secretly regard with thinly veiled envy.

French school dinners are dished out on higher budgets, and often in conjunction with nutritionists, making them much more balanced than merely a collection of ways to clog your arteries. Whereas, it is the very fervour with which my kids crave their canteen’s culinary offerings, that makes me doubt the quality of their contents. If Jamie Oliver is to be believed, many school dinners are little more than a production line of low-budget homages to saturated fats. If that’s the case, then the preparation of a packed lunch represents the last vestige of parental control in a world of self-destructive snacking.

Perhaps the problem boils down to the fact that unhealthy parents rarely breed healthy kids. If Donna from Doncaster thinks a Wagon Wheel is a dietary supplement, then sooner or later her kids will need elasticated waistlines.

Personally, I don’t keep cashew nuts in the house because I lack any restraint in their presence. Perhaps if kids are offered no option apart from healthy home-cooked grub, they would eventually cave in and eat it. In a world obsessed with choice, maybe one of the least learnt lessons is when not to offer any. Bon apettit.  

R.I.P HMV?

‘His Master’s Voice’ has been hoarse for a while, but may not be silenced yet, as HMV’s administrators, Deloitte, say that 50 potential buyers have emerged for the stricken retailer. Restructuring specialists Hilco look the most likely to salvage something from the 223 stores, giving a glimmer of hope to its 4000 staff. Welcome news too for those previously told their Christmas HMV vouchers were now purely of historical value. Deloitte have confirmed they are legal tender again, sending torrents of teenagers to rummage through the recycling.  

After the news broke last week of HMV’s impending demise, Andy Heath, the chair of UK Music said that “going into administration gives HMV an opportunity for a substantial and decent rebirth.” Whilst it sounded as glass-half-full as viewing imminent redundancy as an exciting chance to reconnect with daytime telly and poor personal hygiene, it seems HMV may yet arise phoenix-like from the advancing ashtray.

The company had been effectively drowning in Amazon’s wake for ages, and the opportunity for genuine rebirth is long overdue. Like the camera retailer Jessops, whose 187 stores have shut up shop with the loss of over 1,300 jobs, HMV have failed to find a new niche in the face of increased competition. Aside from the inexorable move towards on-line offerings, supermarkets popped the price bubble with bargain chart CDs through the checkouts, forcing record stores to keep up or be boarded up.  

Like many, I admit to a modest wave of nostalgia when I remember gleefully trawling through the record racks, my HMV voucher in hand. But then I recall grabbing charts CDs from Tesco for under a tenner, which would have got you about three verses and a chorus on the high street. Bingo, the wave was broken.

           

HMV’s like-for-like sales in 2011 were down 11.6% on the previous year, but they still turned in a profit of £17.6 million. By 2012, as the company attempted its last rigorous restructure, shifting focus to live music, ticketing and digital, profits for the “HMV Live” wing of the business did increase, but it was a tourniquet against a tidal wave. 2011/12 produced an overall loss before tax of £16.2 million.

News of restructure and potential purchasers may indeed indicate a legitimate lifeline, and last week the BBC reported that HMV Chief Executive Trevor Moore was “working tirelessly” to save the chain. But bearing in mind he joined the company last April, from Jessops, I’d spend those vouchers swiftly if you can find them.

Downing Street Dave's Referendum Dilemma.

Friday, 11 January 2013

 

They say you can’t please everyone, but when the Prime Minster finally makes his eagerly anticipated and allegedly imminent speech on Europe, he’s unlikely to please anyone at all. Too far right for the left, too left for the right, and if he plays it down the middle he becomes his own deputy. And now it seems the latest candidate queuing up to be potentially displeased with the PM, is US Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs, one Philip H Gordon. Amid the mutinous mumblings from this corner of Europe, Mr Gordon has decreed that if the UK left the EU, the ‘special relationship’ might need counselling.

Whilst simultaneously stressing that “what is in the UK’s interests is up to the UK”, Mr Gordon has affirmed that the Obama administration would “welcome an outward-looking EU with Britain in it”, and, as reported on Sky News, that “referendums have often turned countries inward.” He need not lose much sleep over that, setting aside the sabre-rattling, we are as yet no nearer to holding one.

Some would say that inward looking is not all bad. After September 11^th, Blair stood “shoulder to shoulder” with Bush and a great big target rubbed off onto all of us. Now, standing downwind of two foreign wars we couldn’t afford, it might have been better to just send flowers.

With business leaders briefing against anti-EU action, the current rumours rule out a referendum this side of the next election. While that will not quieten the clamour from the Conservative back benches, from the Downing Street direction, the long grass would no doubt look much greener if this political hot potato could be comfortably kicked into it. Although repatriating powers from Brussels is patriotic rhetoric, it’s not a meeting the Prime Minister can have on his own, and no-one else wants to play.

 

Those Tories tiptoeing towards UKIP might be tempted back to the table if the referendum carrot found its way onto the election manifesto menu. But if the vote went against EU membership, the Prime Minister would be left holding the baby, a hero to those on the hardwood behind him, but persona non grata almost anywhere south of Dover.

 

The trouble with a referendum, as Mr Cameron might privately concede, is that a large number of those invested with the right to vote, will have no clear comprehension of the potential economic consequences. If given the chance, my kids would vote against eating vegetables, as they don’t like them. Buoyed by bullish resistance to the dictates forced previously upon them, they would feel empowered and vindicated, but soon develop scurvy.

The Great Rail Rip-Off

How do you ease pressure on over-crowded rail services? Simple, you make tickets so expensive that folks can’t afford them. It may seem facile and potentially self-defeating, but that was the sledgehammer government solution suspected by the House of Commons Transport Committee, and they should know. Labour MP and Committee Chairman Louise Ellman today cautioned against “ramping up fares” to regulate demand at peak times, as the government ponders over a menu of potential options in the wake of Sir Roy McNulty’s recent report into rail costs.

In fact, it seems the only factor making UK petrol prices feel even remotely reasonable, is the comparative cost of rail travel. Commuters careering cheerfully towards ticket machines this week, eagerly anticipating a return to work after the Christmas festivities, are already facing fare increases of up to 9.2%, according to Shadow Transport Minister Maria Eagle.

But those blinking blearily at their soaring seat prices should perhaps be partially grateful. The government were set to allow train companies price rises in regulated fares of 6.2%, but relented at the last, capping the increase at 4.2%. Cold comfort perhaps for those condemned to standing room only, gazing into someone else’s armpit, and paying steadily more for the daily privilege. In addition, the cap only covers the so-called “regulated fares”, leaving rail companies free to cash in on other unsuspecting customers.

The above inflation formula of Retail Price Index +1% has been used to set the rise in most rail fares since 2004, meaning commuter’s costs increasing by 54% in 10 years. The Campaign for Better Transport equates this to a fare rise of more than 20% above wage increases, and have initiated an on-line petition, calling on the government to end above inflation increments.

Perhaps the West Coast Main Line palaver perfectly illustrated the pitfalls of privatised rail provision. Virgin lost the franchise in favour of a First Group offer, which, whilst tantalisingly tempting to a cash-strapped treasury, seemed ever destined to become too good to be true, right up until it was. To add sodium to the sore, Virgin will now need reimbursing for their bid in a franchise process that appears decidedly dodgy. If it didn’t work for the East Coast Mainline, why would a few hundred miles make any discernable difference?  

Personally, I fail to see the fun in paying £6 billion in subsidies to rail companies who will have to satisfy shareholders, pay undeserved bonuses, and are patently aware that if the whole sorry shambles comes crashing round their ears, the taxpayer will pick up the tab. If they ask me, public ownership is the only responsible platform for running public services, but it’s reassuringly unlikely they will.

And the NRA's antidote to guns is...more guns!

We may share a common tongue and a fondness for fried potato products, but watching the press conference from Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice-President of the National Rifle Association, the United States of America has never seemed more foreign, and less united.

Ominously silent since the Sandy Hook massacre, this was a first response to the events that crow-barred Newtown, Conneticut, into our collective consciousness, and whipped up the wave of anti-second amendment rhetoric now breaking daily on the doorstep of the NRA.

Mr LaPierre initially welcomed assembled members of the press to what he termed ‘the beginning of our discussion of the topic’, before announcing that no questions would be taken. From that point it became apparent the ‘discussion’ would be a tad one-sided and although an opportunity for questions was promised on another occasion, this was distinctly more polemic than press conference.

After confirming the NRA shared in the collective revulsion, Mr LaPierre asked why, in the aftermath of the abhorrent actions of Adam Lanza, was nobody tackling what he sees as the central issue; how to keep children safe, right now, in “a way that we know will work.” Mr LaPierre pointed out that Americans are perfectly happy to see presidents, airports, offices, court houses and even sports stadiums protected by armed guards, and yet when it comes to children, he said, they are left “utterly defenceless”. It was by now abundantly clear what was coming.

The solution, as the NRA sees it, is a National School Shield Emergency Response Program, that’s gun-totting guards in schools to you and me. After all, as Mr LaPierre put it; “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.” Well, the National Rifle Association must have a lot of guns, and, surprise surprise, LaPierre announced that the NRA is “willing and uniquely qualified to help.” But, not only help, they’ll bankroll it with both barrels, to the tune of “whatever scope the task requires.” Now, in a time of tight budgets and fiscal shortfalls, it’s deeply gratifying to think of an army of heavily-armed altruists riding to the rescue. Or is it?

Mr LaPierre had pilloried those he professed were trying to exploit the tragedy “for political gain”, and rightly so. Yet, it is hard to envisage from this “multi-faceted program”, incorporating armed security, building design, IT, access control, and featuring the “most knowledgeable and credentialed experts”, that somebody wouldn’t quietly come out of it with a big stash of cash.

Setting aside such cynical assertions, LaPierre did make some salient points. Movie studios and video games manufacturers were duly called to account for portraying life “as a joke” and murder “as a way of life”. After stating that society was “populated by an unknown number of genuine monsters”, he also chastised the media for giving said monsters their much craved global platform.

Although from this side of the pond, LaPierre’s proposal may smack of opportunist economics, or a cynical justification of the NRA’s own existence, saying; ‘oops, we were wrong, could everyone give their guns back?’ is unlikely to have the desired effect either.

However morally bankrupt it might seem to suggest sending armed security into American schools, perhaps the time for a more educational approach elapsed when Pandora’s gunpowder pouch was opened, and its access enshrined in US law. Sandy Hook evokes a collective pain, pointing to a collective problem, and a society consistently producing such cancerous killings, needs to take a long hard look inside itself for the cure.

 

Green light for gay weddings?

‘C of E gay marriage to be illegal’ is perhaps not the headline David Cameron had hoped his consultation might herald. Of course, from the Culture Secretary’s comments on non-straight nuptials in the Commons, the BBC News website could just as easily have concocted; ‘nothing changes in Church of England’. Although arguably true of any time this side of the Reformation, I concede it's a little less eye-catching.

 

Maria Miller’s announcement that under proposed legislation it would be illegal for the Churches of England and Wales to marry same-sex couples, was in direct response to strong opposition from both organisations. This caveat forms part of the “quadruple lock”, roughly translated as four ideas, intended to safeguard religious freedom. Also included is the guarantee that religious groups won’t be strong armed into holding gay weddings. Such ceremonies will also be unlawful unless the governing body of a religious movement has officially ‘opted in’. Crucially, the proposal includes an amendment to the 2010 Equality Act protecting ministers from discrimination claims if they refuse to perform a same-sex ceremony, a key concern for clergy, given the ominous shadow of European law.

 

Bearing in mind the plethora of passionately held opinions on the proposal, any conclusions would have always had compromise crayoned all over them, which explains some of the resultant mumbling, both measured and more manifest. However, despite the disappointment of many, and the predictable backlash from the jam and Jerusalem brigade on the Tory backbenches, this is a diplomatic decision against a backdrop of contrasting concerns.

 

Gay couples keen to marry, or graduate from civil partnerships, could do so in registry offices, and selected churches outside the C of E umbrella. Clergy opposed to same-sex services will not be obliged to conduct them, contrary to their convictions, and the state will not be seen to be reaching beyond its remit, by prescribing church policy.

 

Few democratic solutions are without winners and losers. Those on the sharp end of this legislation remain same-sex Christian couples unable to celebrate their wedding amid church communities in which they worship every week. They would, at least, be able to walk down the aisle, if not always the nearest available.  

 

I wonder if it may even be more frustrating for some ministers to have to deny same-sex Christian couples their vows before God, than marrying the manifestly agnostic who just want a photo in a charming churchyard. If the Coalition are still consulting, why not consider allowing any Christian couple a cheap church wedding, charge a four figure fee for the religiously indifferent, irrespective of sexual orientation, and make churches splash the cash on underfloor heating? After all, God loves everyone, no matter their choice of bedfellow, and it’s hard to commune with your maker if you can’t feel your feet. Just a thought.

Should Britain be a 'Friend of Israel'?

Surely one of the more loaded terms amongst international idioms is the self-certification of being “a friend of Israel”. It is clearly more than just exchanging Christmas cards and the odd Facebook update, and you can’t get your boots under the best desk in the White House without at least claiming to be one, even if you have your fingers crossed.

The phrase can denote an often unspecific standing, found somewhere on the sliding scale from casual Semitic sympathiser to fully-paid up Zionist. Barack Obama has claimed to be a ‘friend of Israel’, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad most definitely hasn’t, and I dare say William Hague would like to avoid the question. Especially now the government of Benjamin Netanyahu has announced plans to build 3000 new settlement homes in the 'E1' area, to the northeast of Jerusalem. Indeed, some of Israel’s friends may sense the mild misgivings akin to taking a mate to a family wedding, who then, despite bearing all the outward vestiges of sophistication, gets smashed on the free bubbly, makes a pass at the bride’s mother and throws up on the cake.

The timing of Israel’s announcement suggests a knee-jerk reaction to the United Nations General Assembly recognising Palestine as a ‘non-member observer state’ this week. One might think that after all this time a refusal to recognise anybody would have been considered rude, yet still the US opposed the motion and the UK took a traditionally assertive stance, and abstained.

Palestinian commentators note that the ‘state’ now recognised is itself fairly unrecognisable compared to that agreed by the United Nations in 1967. However, if the newly proposed settlements were to proceed, then the West Bank would be effectively cut off from East Jerusalem, and the territory would become so divided as to render the ‘two state solution’ virtually unviable. It is perhaps this, rather than the settlements themselves, that induced an unusually robust response from notable European powers. The British, French and Swedish Foreign Ministries summoned respective Israeli ambassadors to express concern over further building deemed illegal under international law, with similar statements issued by both Germany and Russia.

The UK government, whilst rowing back from the early rumours of recalling the ambassador to Israel, is keeping all diplomatic options on the table. Such measures could potentially stretch to suspending trade deals in protest, however, David Cameron confirmed the Coalition are "not proposing to do anything further at this stage".

Whilst it would be inappropriate to attempt to solve or even summarise such a complex geo-political conundrum in one trite paragraph, if a neighbour keeps planting trees on your lawn you’ll eventually need a chainsaw. The preferred outcome of course, would involve a direct but diplomatic neighbourhood watch, which is where the rest of us come in.