Rob Walters' Blog

In UK politics at the moment, both the current Government – fragmented as it is – and the Opposition seem to have a bee in their bonnet about the National Deficit. Now, I’m not an economist. I’m a businessman, an IT professional, and hopefully a relatively informed voter.

I have to confess, I don’t really care about the National Deficit. I’m sure it’s pretty undesirable by the way everyone’s banging on about it, so by all means let’s reduce it. But please, Government, reduce it without messing my life up…

OK that’s rather tongue in cheek, but it illustrates a point. The average UK taxpayer – be he a businessman, working class, upper class or anywhere in between, doesn’t really care about monetary policy. Most – and I include myself – don’t know what a national deficit IS, let alone why we don’t want one. So all the rhetoric from politicians about “shall we reduce the deficit in 4 years or longer?” is bound to make voters switch off. It’s like asking us to have an opinion on what tarmac we want the roads made of, or what shirt the Speaker of the House of Commons wears, or what wallpaper is used in the Queen’s bathroom. Nothing could bore me more.

There’s one thing we care about – we care about the effects of fiscal policy on ourselves. Not the country, ME. How much money will I have in my pocket at the end of the month if we reduce in 4 years or 10 years? Whichever will give me more money, let’s do that, and blow everyone else.

Economics are a complex subject – interest rates, deficit reduction, all the stuff the Chancellor bangs on about every budget. All the political parties are setting out their stalls by their fiscal policy, and I’ve never been less interested in politics.

But as if that’s not bad enough, the Labour Party seems intent on raking over history as well. Invading Iraq probably wasn’t a good idea for Britain, though I’m pleased Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. But that decision was taken literally years ago. It’s like debating whether Neville Chaimberlain was right to appease Hitler, or whether the US should have invaded Vietnam. It just doesn’t matter anymore. Right or wrong, we did it and we have to live with the consequences. Whether that means leaving troops in the country for a few more years, putting effort into rebuilding programmes or apprehending terrorists who turned against us because of the invasion.

No more “should we have, shouldn’t we have?” debating. We did, so let’s move on.

Unless the political parties can focus on the issues that matter to us plebs, and stop b****ing about the past, voter apathy is going to continue to rise.

If there’s one thing that’s driving me nuts at the moment it’s comment spam.

Granted I’ve not exactly been a prolific poster, so getting hundreds of thoughtful comments every day isn’t going to happen. But I wasn’t prepared for the level of comment spam I’d get!

For those not familiar with the term, comment spam is the addition of comments to a post such as this, containing advertising, usually for porn or scams. I tend to get between 2 and 10 comments every day, most of which make absolutely zero sense in the context of my blog. They usually come in the middle of the night UK time, also, which further annoys me when my Blackberry goes off in the middle of the night.

I’m afraid, as a result, comments are going off! If anyone genuinely does want to comment (which hasn’t happened yet, so I won’t hold my breath) then just email me!!!

The news media seems to have latched onto another hot button issue – bankers pay.

I read today that one of Barclays’ board members, Bob Diamond, has made £5m by selling some shares in Barclays, and that 23,000 staff at Barclays Capital are to receive payrises. If Barclays had received government money in the recent bailouts, I could understand the outcry, but Barclays was the only one of the “big four” retail banks not to take a penny from the taxpayer.

Barclays’ financial solidity, which remains despite the takeover of parts of Lehman Brothers, is down to its investment bankers. Clearly the good men and women of Barclays Capital,� led by Bob Diamond, � have obviously been doing something right with my hard earned brass, because their position is an order of magnitude better than Lloyds TSB Group, RBS Group and HSBC. I’m all for rewarding the people who are keeping my money safe! But the Guardian seems to think this isn’t fair. They also seem to think that there’s something unsavory in Bob Diamond realising £5m in cash through selling shares, which are after all his property already.

This country certainly has a culture of rewarding failure, as has been shown by some of the recent bonuses paid on departure of failing Chief Executives. However, we shouldn’t lose sight of the need to reward our brightest and best, those who individually are performing well despite these difficult economic times. We also need to be very clear that corporate poor performance does not equate to individual poor performance, and ensure that we don’t tar all employees of struggling organisations, such as our banks, with the same brush.

The current economic crisis is unfortunate, and has led to personal hardship for a great number of people. But the simple fact is, the banks are not entirely to blame. Yes, they were willing to lend, but we were also willing to borrow.

Becoming a high-earner in any organisation, be it a bank, a public sector organisation, a PLC or a limited company, is not as easy as the papers seem to imply. The top executives in this country were not born with a six figure paycheque earmarked for them, they worked hard and for long hours to attain their position. I don’t see what right I, the Guardian, or anyone else, has to stop them enjoying the fruits of their labours.

I’m certainly not in favour of abject poverty, homelessness or starving children. But we need to be clear about WHY we’re a developed country – generally it is down to the personal contribution of political, social and business leaders in mobilising the masses to achieve a positive change, development.

Incidentally, the top 50% of the population by earnings contribute 89% of the tax bill, with the top 1% contributing over 24% of the nation’s wealth. Granted their own wealth far exceeds the amount contributed in tax, but there needs to be a degree of consideration about what these people give society. The rich are often the leaders, the people that make things happen, the people that excel in their field (Bernie Ecclestone, for example), the people that save jobs on the High Street (Phillip and Cristina Green), the people who bring us mass-market best selling products and services (Richard Branson) and the people who bring us innovation and originality (James Dyson).

What would the world be like without this class of rich people? Consider Communist countries such as China, or North Korea. Anyone fancy making a move this Christmas?

Well, Borders is finally gone!

This evening, Borders closes its doors at all 45 stores. Over 1000 people will be made redundant on Christmas Eve, after efforts by the Joint Administrators, MCR, to sell some – any – of the company’s stores as going concerns failed.

Many are commenting on the demise of the high street, and it is easy to blame e-tailers such as Amazon for Borders’ failure to trade profitably. However, competitors have existed since the Snake competed with God to provide advice to Adam and Eve, and will always be with us. Competition is healthy in any market. So why have high street retailers such as Woolworths, Zavvi and Borders been dropping like flies?

Consumers!

Consumers?!

Yes, consumers.

The problem is that as consumers (and I include myself in that category), we’re very shortsighted.

We love the experience of shopping for books, picking up books, feeling their� weight and texture, maybe sitting and� reading for a while… We forget, though, that someone has to pay for our shopping experience. But we forget that someone has to pay for that experience – by buying books. As we complete the shopping experience by buying a book -� from Amazon -� we’re trying to have our cake and eat it, hoping that someone else will pay for our browsing.

Unfortunately, as the Borders escapade has shown, someone else won’t.

I remember I first visited the new Borders store in the Bullring in Birmingham in 2003. Despite Birmingham having two large branches of Waterstones, the offerings found in these stores were being gradually diluted by the need to cater to the masses. I was finding it increasingly hard to find affection for Waterstones – whereas 2 years earlier I could easily spend an afternoon and an obscene sum of money in Waterstones, branches were becoming samey and generic. I wanted to find books with depth, on new and specialist subjects, yet I was increasingly confronted with volumes such as Windows XP For Seniors – for which I felt as much enthusiasm as fishes feel for raincoats.

Borders offered something different. Whilst their Computing section was similar in size to that of Waterstones, it seemed to delve deeper into the subject, with more books of specialist interest. I was hooked. But I rarely bought books, and when I did there was a sense of guilt, that I could have made better use of my money buying online.

Recently, I restarted buying books in stores. Partly because I wanted the immediacy of getting my book there and then, partly because Amazon’s Super Saver delivery irritated me by delaying postage on free delivery – it seems almost miserly. And partly because my daughter (aged 4) was developing an appreciation for book shopping, and I couldn’t think of a way of getting her equally enthused about internet shopping from Amazon. She reawakened me to “the experience”.

The constant race to be the lowest priced retailer is not sustainable – it’s a game of Russian Roulette between stores. Who will be the first to commit commercial suicide by offering the most loss-making, consumer-pleasing range?

I fully expect that Borders’ closing sale will have a significant impact on other retailers such as WH Smith, Waterstone’s and smaller retailers. I’ve spent my entire year’s book budget in the past 2 weeks, leaving no money in the pot to spend elsewhere. The hordes that have cleared the shelves of Borders stores across the country won’t now be rushing to other shops to buy more books – the book market is saturated. The� leaders of other retailers will need to display nerves of steel and sound management to bring their businesses safely into 2010.

The biggest lesson, though, is to us as consumers.� We need to be very clear about what we want and what we value, and we need to support those values� in� how we� spend our hard earned cash.

The cost� difference between an online purchase and a high-street purchase may be as much as 40%, but we need to be very clear about what that 40% means. That 40% pays for our browsing experience, for something to do on a rainy day, for helping to get children interested in reading, for broadening our interests through browsing. Is it worth paying 40% more? I can’t answer for everyone, but it’s certainly worth it for me.

If you think I’m being sentimental and nostalgic, consider the business case. Waterstones’ main competitor on the high street has just fallen. There’s a few independents left (Foyle’s in London and� Blackwell’s are prominent examples) but the main race is between Waterstones and Amazon. What will happen if Amazon wins? I find it hard to believe prices will remain low when there’s no competition to provoke price wars. So Amazon will sell at RRP, in which case, what have we gained through e-business?