Cheese!

I've spent the weekend looking at portrait photography from the 1980s. Not something I have previously been interested in but remarkably enjoyable. Let me tell you how I came to be doing this.

I was fortunate to be invited to lunch at the House of Lords last week. My host was delayed and so I waited in the small area in the cloakroom where there are a few chairs placed for this purpose. 

A lady was sitting opposite and as she looked up I mentioned that I thought she was wearing a fine pair of spectacles. She said that was thinking the same about mine, a Theo frame called soixant cinq in a white/grey tortoiseshell. It turned out we both had a spectacle habit although hers (60 frames) was not quite as bad as mine (I've lost count). 

Her name was Gemma and she was a photographer. She had published several books and worked extensively with the late Henry Moore, the famous sculptor. Moore of course has a strong connection to my home town of Leeds and indeed this lady had visited Leeds on many occasions. 

But as we got on to discussing the photography in more detail it turned out that this was someone I had read about in one of the Sunday magazines. She was Gemma Levine, who had photographed anyone who was anyone. It was amazing to meet someone who had taken portraits of so many people who had made history and many of them no longer with us.  

Back home I had a look on Amazon to see what of her work was available in print. I was amazed to find a second hand copy of Faces of the 80s for just 1p. The book arrived in time for the weekend. It is so interesting to see the great and the good photographed 30 years or so ago. Alan Sugar appears adjacent to Robert Maxwell. How both fortunes have changed in the intervening years. Sir Ralph Halpern on £1m per year and before his well publicised misdemeanours. Joan Collins described as a role model for women over forty. A young Rowan Atkinson with notes written by Jeffrey Archer I suspect that if this book were to be reissued in the first decade of the next century, his would be a name that would survive and would, indeed, be enhanced.  How true.

So I am grateful for my host turning up late and once again for my spectacles being an ice breaker with a complete stranger. I have discovered an art form I never would have looked twice at before.

Just before leaving I used the facilities - in bold letters on the door is states "Peers Only". That certainly makes you think!

Reception at No 10

 

 The Prime Minister

 

requests the pleasure of the company of

 

Mr Jonathan Straight

at a reception to celebrate small business

at Downing Street

on Wednesday 5th June, from 4.30pm to 6pm

You would think it was a hoax, well wouldn't you?  If this landed in your inbox one day. I certainly did, but then checking out the e-mail address it looked convincing, genuine, the real thing. My mate Dave wanted to invite me round. He also thought I had a small business. Well, possibly small by his standards, i.e. under a billion. It would have been rude to refuse.

Arriving at the gates, there was quite a queue. Seemed more than 100 had also been asked. The large sign at the edge of the sentry box states that x-ray and explosive detection equipment is in use. No chances today - although the last time I saw the PM (at The Times offices) somewhat unbelievably there was no security at all. 

Once through the gates, there is a strange feeling. Familiar but also new. Everything is a little smaller than you might expect. There is no grand plaza opposite the famous door as the television images might have you believe. The lack of traffic and scant numbers of people gives the feeling of being on a film set. 

Mobile 'phones are strictly verboten in No 10 and have to be left at the door. In fact they have a specially constructed piece of furniture with upwards of a hundred pigeon holes just for this purpose.

We all were ushered into No 10, turned to the right and the down the stairs past portraits of former Prime Ministers and then through a corridor lined with cricket-team type photographs of former Cabinets all autographed and then out into the garden.

The garden at No 10 is a real oasis of calm and it was a joy to stand and chat on the lawn whilst sipping elderflower water provided in abundance from the kind coffers of the Cabinet Office. 

Looking around there were a few business people I had met before. But then I began to spot various well-known faces all of whom were ready and willing to engage in conversation. And it seemed for once were actually listening and seemed really interested.

Eventually Mr Cameron arrived with a large entourage in tow, gave a brief talk about how wonderful we all were and how even more wonderful he was and then he began to walk around the lawn shaking hands with everyone. I was a little miffed because my handshake had not been caught by the photographer, but heigh ho. 

I had some very meaningful conversations with a number of MPs, Ministers and of course other business people. One lady was telling me all about her viral marketing business when her friend came over to greet her whilst clutching a mobile. "How come you're allowed one of those in here?" I asked. She worked next door. It was the lovely Thea Rogers, aide to George Osborne. I asked where George was. "He's supposed to be coming," she said as the mobile buzzed. It was him - and she was off.

When she returned with George in tow I was able to go straight over and I started to speak to him. I thanked him for listening to my comments about tax relief on share options a year before. (See my blog from 22-3-12). The rules had indeed been changed and I am claiming all the credit. "We're trying to be a listening government," he said.

Then I confessed to Thea that it was me who had tweeted that Georgie had a hole in his shoe the last time I saw him and that this piece of information had unfortunately been picked up by the Daily Telegraph. Probably did him a favour though as Timpson's offered him a free repair on reading the story!

After a very enjoyable afternoon I was about to leave when I bumped into James Caan. He had been all over the papers that day for telling people not to give jobs to their children when doing precisely that himself. He probably thought this was the one place he wouldn't get any hassle. "They're giving you a hard time," I said. He swiftly departed.

 

Then, there he was. My mate Dave. I saw the photographer nearby and told her that I would really like a photograph with the PM. "He's about to leave," she announced. "Don't move," I said.

 

"Prime Minister. Photograph with the moustache of the year?" I shouted in his direction. We linked arms and smiled for the camera. 
 

 

 

 

Banking on it.

I regret that this post has been temporarily removed.

You may draw your own conclusions as to why this may be the case.

For further information please contact me: jonathan.straight@straight.co.uk

 

What is wrong with the Olympics?

And so the McGames are almost upon us. They are beset with problems because the entire event now has very little to do with sport and everything to do with the worst kind of sponsorship infused with quite a few vested interests and topped off with some very poor management. So many people who believe their own hype, it is worrying.

There has been no end of publicity about the various issues afflicting the McGames, however, we do keep being told how the event is under budget.  It has officially cost £9.3 billion.  Something like £163 for every man, woman and child in the UK.  It was supposed to cost the public purse £1.1bn, so it is manifestly over budget, but let's not worry. Lloyds Bank says that there will be a happiness dividend worth £165 for each and every one of us - we are even in profit, just. But hang on a moment. Aren't Lloyds one of the sponsors? Didn't they lose £3.5bn last year and don't they belong to the tax payer anyway? 

It has been said that the actual cost of the McGames is more like £24bn - more than £400 each. But surely we are getting current and long term benefits from the event. Says David Cameron, says Lloyds Bank and says Cadburys. Politicians and sponsors. One is a sponsor recycling taxpayers money - and that is probably all the recycling that will be going on as we shall see. 

Ask the Bank of England and they will say there is little or no benefit to the economy and Moodys claim no long term benefit at all. What is more, when LOCOG, the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic games, has finished its work, the Government will have to pay up for any overspend on their part and this could be substantial.  

LOCOG claimed that it would offer a robust, fair and transparent approach to procuring". I'm not sure if they did or didn't but it certainly seems they make some terrible errors of judgement. 

We submitted a PQQ, a Pre Qualification Questionnaire, for a relatively small contract. The product was something we have a significant market share of and anyone serious about buying such a product would be well served to at least speak to us. We were told that our services were not required. However, believing that the the process would be covered by the European Public Contracts Regulations we thought we would be able to understand why we were excluded and then possibly challenge the decision. Not so. Because private money supplied by sponsors was being spent, there was no such protection for any supplier and LOCOG made up its own rules. 

I happened to speak to another supplier who was actually shortlisted for this contract. They were a small business that we had never come across before and are certainly not a key player in the market. That company was made to jump through hoops by LOGOC only to be dumped towards the end of the process. A middle man buying goods from overseas was given the work and some of the high environmental standards which were promised were ditched. The other supplier agreed with us that we were both probably better off without the headache. 

None of this should be any surprise. 91% of all official souvenirs were not made in the UK.  The seating is from Australia when a UK manufacturer is based only a couple of miles from the Olympic Park. Even the bell is coming from The Netherlands when there is a manufacturer here in the UK who is perfectly able to do the job.

Now back to the recycling. LOCOG set out ambitious environmental targets. A recent report  Towards a One Planet Olympics states that the legacy targets will are unlikely to be met in time for the games or even once they have finished. Oh dear. 

The brands which will dominate the games are about food and drink which at best is not especially good for you. At worst, young people will associate chocolate, sugary drinks, fatty fast food and (Dutch) beer with athletic performance. There has been much criticism and rightly so but the suggestion that this money is make or break for the event is not true. Sponsorship covers 10% of the cost. As for the nine of every ten pounds not covered by sponsors, you and I pay for it. Yet we get nothing in return. 

At the end of the day, the events over the coming few weeks may be viewed as a great success or possibly a disaster depending on what unfolds. For all of these criticisms there are undoubtedly good points but at the end of the day there is one simple reason why we should not be allowing this circus to take place. We cannot afford it. We cannot afford the cost, we cannot afford the disruption or the legacy which will continue to cost us and our children for years to come. If we are not able to educate our young, to treat our sick and to house our homeless it is frankly immoral to burn so many billions on an orgy of navel gazing like this.

From the Summit : Does anyone care about the environment?

Once again I have returned from The Times CEO Summit in London having spent a day with some of the UK's leading business leaders. Together we heard presentations, we debated the issues of the moment and we asked questions of politicians and entrepreneurs. The Times did an amazing job once again.

At the same event last year Rupert Murdoch sat at the next table with his son James on one side and Rebekah Brooks on the other. None of them were there this year, Brooks was in the dock and the Murdochs elsewhere. Last year David Cameron visited - this year we had to settle for Vince Cable and George Osborne. A lot can change in a year. The agenda was similar though - through the morning talk about picking winners and how to champion and finance new talent.

Whilst listening to a very distinguished panel of Ana Botin (CEO Santander ), Charles Dunstone (Chairman Carphone Warehouse), Brent Hoberman (Co-founder PROfounders Capital), Luke Jonhson (Chairman Risk Capital Partners) and Geoff Watts (CEO EDITD) the issue of green taxes was mentioned by Johnson. He said that it was no good if green taxes made us one of the less competitive places in the world.

Other than this, there was little other mention of the environment by anyone aside from Lord Mandelson briefly talking about his previous work on carbon reduction. It seemed that the environment was no longer on anyone's agenda. 

I like Johnson, or at least I liked him. His weekly column in the FT is insightful and compelling and his public speaking is interesting and engaging. But in the 1990s I used to read a magazine called BusinessAge. Johnson was always in it being quoted using the most foul language and portraying himself as a laddish hero. I felt that perhaps he should grow up. Years on it seemed he had.

Given the opportunity to ask a question I picked up on the point of green taxes to Johnson and also to the rest of the panel. I pointed out the recent report stating that if everyone on earth lived as we do in the UK, we would need three planets. In light of this, I wondered if the panel felt that economic growth should be pursued at any cost or if being environmentally responsible could actually be the opportunity for growth that we are all looking for.

I was bowled over by Johnson's response. He has no interest in the environment dismissing talk of "armageddon" and "paranoia" and stating that mankind would find a solution and that there would be rational solutions coming forward [for global warming]. To think otherwise would be to embrace decline and would lead to unemployment. 

None of the other panelists wanted to comment. It seems that as long as the UK is competitive and we have economic growth then the planet does not matter.

This is fundamentally wrong. The key to sustainable growth has to be respect for the environment. Rather than making us uncompetitive we should be embracing the circular economy and rebuilding our own manufacturing sector in a new and forward thinking way. 

If Luke Johnson has an open mind I would welcome the opportunity to show him how our factory at Straight plc has been transformed by pursuing a low carbon agenda. How almost all the raw material we use is now recycled and how our energy will come from the wind. How this has transformed not only our thinking but our profitability too. 

Camilla Cavendish who is Associate Editor of The Times told me afterwards that she used to cover a lot of environmental stories but it seemed this had fallen by the wayside. But talking about these issues in a "we can't afford it" kind of way misses the point. It is not just about global warming but about having a business that can survive long term by making more with less. 

Like me, Luke Johnson has young children. It is time we all worked to make the world a better place for them without stealing their future from them. Time to grow up. 

Mayor for Leeds?

In a couple of days time, the people of Leeds will be able to vote on whether they want a directly elected mayor. To be honest, until quite recently I was not even aware that a referendum was happening. It has not been widely publicised and is not even mentioned on the polling cards. These just refer to changes in the way that Leeds City Council is run.

I was asked a couple of weeks ago if I was in favour of a direcly elected mayor and I thought that for a city like Leeds this would be a good thing. I posted a couple of tweets about this and as a result the Yes Campaign in Leeds got in touch.

Next thing I was on the BBC1 Sunday Politics Show debating the issue and speaking passionately in favour of a mayor for Leeds.

Whilst I cannot speak for any other city where a referendum is taking place, I do believe that a directly elected mayor for Leeds will be a great move forward. Leeds is in the top 100 on the world stage by GDP, is is the 24th most populous city in the European Union and it is classed as a gamma city, in other words a key node in the global economic system. As a result, Leeds needs to hold its own on the world stage, it needs a strategy for growth and investment and it needs to punch above its weight. A directly elected mayor could achieve all of this and more.

Whilst all of the three major national political parties are in favour of elected mayors, all of the local parties are against this. Is this because their cosy coterie of power might be under threat? Is this why they are all keeping so quiet about the issue?

Councillor Jack Scott from Sheffield, with whom I appeared on the Sunday Politics Show, says that a directly elected mayor would be an "elected dictator" and would cost a lot of money. This is the level of the no campaign. Oxymoron and scare mongoring. They have nothing positive to say, they are concerned with maintaining the power base of the elected few who then choose their own leader. They seek to deny the people of a great city like Leeds the say on who runs their affairs.

Other "no" arguments are that one person would have too much power. But the mayor would have to have 40% of the council vote with him and don't we now have a prime minister for as set term? This brings stability and rises above party lines.

Other scare tactics being used are the suggestion that the mayor could appoint "cronies". Again, not true. All members of the mayoral cabinet would have to be elected councillors.

Were anyone in any doubt as to why the old guard should be voted out and a new era of leadership ushered in, then they should look at the behaviour of the leader of Leeds City Council, Keith Wakefield (pictured).

Mr Wakefield (who thinks he is Mr Leeds) is against a directly elected mayor. He is calling for a no vote. He has stated that a mayor would be "undemocratic" and "utter madness". Yet he has also said that is there is a yes vote in Leeds, then he would stand himself.

The people of Leeds should treat this outrageous and duplicitous statement with the contempt it deserves and fight back by coming out of their homes this week in droves to vote yes for a mayor for Leeds.

Fuelled by ignorance

With much of the media this morning seeking to blame the Government for causing a fuel crisis where there wasn't one previously, once again it looks like the Great British Public are unable or unwilling to take any responsibility for themselves. The flames are then fanned by our irresponsible media.

It is true that Downing Street has handled this issue with appalling ignorance and in a blundering and uncoordinated manner. However, it is also clear that a potential strike is at least 11 days off and there is no risk of industrial action over the Easter weekend.

Can we really blame government of whom people take little notice of anyway? Are people so stupid that they blindly follow the media-induced panic propagated by the tabloids? No. There is only one thing that has caused this crisis and that is selfish and ignorant behaviour on the part of individuals.

I wish our great nation would just get a grip and stop blaming everyone else for its problems. Here is some simple advice. If you don't need fuel, don't buy any.