Who knows?

For some odd reason I've been looking at the cost of self-publishing a book. When I say "a book" I mean a book written by me. Why am I thinking about this? No idea really - it's probably a passing fancy that will be forgotten about within a week. But then again, soon enough (4 weeks) my exams will be over and I'll have more spare time. While I'll be working during the day, I'd need something to fill my evenings and weekends (other than sitting in the pub because (1) that get's expensive, and (2) I'd rather not destroy that many brain cells).

A thought that crosses my mind is: who the hell would want to read anything written by me? Do I really think I've got anything interesting to say about anything? Going by what I've written in this blog so far, the answer would appear to be a resounding "NO!", but who knows? It could be worth giving it a go. While I often slip into the "if you don't try you can't fail" school of thought (I think Homer Simpson is our most famous member), maybe it would be a challenge worth taking on?

The obvious question is: so what would it be about? You would have thought that as I'm looking at the costs of publishing I'd have some sort of idea wouldn't you? Well, I don't really. Nothing concrete and I've certainly not started putting anything down on paper. Any suggestions gratefully received!

For now though I think I'll focus on revision. Passing these exams is something much more within my reach than publishing a book that anyone would want to read.

For more info on Epictetus click here

There is a "crisis" in Europe after the referendum defeats for the Dutch and French government. The usually pro-EU citizens have decided that something isn't right and that their politicians aren't delivering what they had hoped. In France, this is clearly related to their poor economic condition. Growth is flat and unemployment is at about 10%. This is not what they had been lead to believe would happen if they joined the single currency. The Dutch vote is different. There it seems to be linked more to concerns about immigration and an expanded EU. Whatever the reasons though, the common statement is clear: we're not happy with the way the EU is heading.

In the light of this, the obvious reaction for European politicians would be to take a step back and start to ask: what do our people really want? Where are we going wrong? This however isn't what is happening. The constitutional treaty's rejection is because it is biased in favour of an Anglo-Saxon economic system, it is claimed. This is, of course, the UK's fault. In addition to this, loud questions are being asked about the rebate from contributions to the EU, despite the fact we take out less than we put in and, over the last 20 years have contributed about twice as much as France (once the Common Agricultural Policy and other subsidies are taken into account).

The UK is being painted as the cause of all the EU's ills. We wish to turn the EU into a free market, where competition rules and social protections are reduced. And to be honest, they're right as far as I'm concerned. It is clear that the French and German economies, with their deep-seated protections of labour leading to inflexible job markets, are not working. The unemployment figures speak for themselves. Our economic system, similar to that of the USA though slightly less brutally competitive and with more social protections, seems to be superior having ridden out the post-dot.com boom slump with less of a problem than the eurozone. Turning the EU into a freer market would not be such a bad thing - and it was afterall what we agreed to all those years ago (and before my time) when we initially joined.

Then there is the rebate issue. Clearly the financing of the EU needs to be re-jigged. There is wide disparity between the per capita inputs of some of the richer countries. The problem, however, is not the UK's rebate (as has been pointed out above, it is still justified), it is the way the money raised is spent that is in most need of reform. The Common Agricultural Policy is a disgrace to the modern world, adding as it does to problems faced by developing nations by reducing the competitiveness of those countries' products. Removing, or at least significantly reducing, the CAP would not only cut a large chunk off the costs of the EU but it would also make a massive difference to competitiveness of farmers in many developing countries.

So how about a deal then fellow citizens of the EU: we give up our rebate if you agree to dump the CAP?

Link of the day: Who needs guns when you can just use your body?
(Yes I know it's poor but I've not had time to find anything more interesting!)

At a time when I'm struggling for motivation in the face of impending exams, this article caught my attention.

My initial reaction was: oh no, how far has our society fallen that we are forced to "bribe" a group of people, young adults, to want to improve their prospects. However, I do not think we should give up all hope for Britain yet.

The scheme is aimed at those who are not academically minded and are looking for a job having left school. It's purpose is to better equip such people for job hunting and the world of work in general so that they are more likely to find gainful employment (rather than claim benefits from the state I suppose).

From a purely economic point of view, perhaps it makes sense. The "incentives" (as they are officially labeled) will cost the taxpayer about £870,000. If a large proportion of those who take part enter employment sooner and over their lives pay more in taxation (and the state less in benefits) than the scheme will cost then it will have been a success - the benefits will have outweighed the costs. In addition to this, there are clearly social gains to be made. For example, a person taking part in such a scheme may feel like they are trying to "improve" themselves, that they are being pro-active and attempting to make a contribution to society. This of course is undermined by the fact that they're getting "incentivised" to take part in the scheme but you see what I am getting at. Their sense of self-worth is increased and perhaps their they feel more associated with the society they live in.

So, given that there are clearly potential benefits to the scheme, does this mean it is such a bad thing for offering iPods and cash to encourage participation? Surely anything that can improve a person's quality of life and thereby help that person to make a worthwhile contribution to society should be encouraged? I would say so. We all receive incentives of some sort or another during our lives: "If you do your homework you can watch that TV programme later", "if you get good grades we'll give you £x" etc. Education is already incentivised, this scheme simply takes that to another level.

While our immediate reaction is, "this is terrible", it isn't really a "new" idea. Just a re-working of a long established practice. It does not represent another nail in the coffin of our society.

Another interesting link that I've stumbled accross. This bloke is clearly mad, but it's very entertaining: Daily Dancer

Excellent bit of journalism in Exeter's Express and Echo today:

Coldplay want to perform City show

Slightly over-hyped as nothing is even vaguely confirmed but exciting news nonetheless. It's about time our one true superstar fan (sorry Noel Edmonds and Ade Edmonson you just don't cut it) demonstrated his love for the mighty Grecians. The club would no doubt benefit financially and in terms of public profile from the visit of a band the size of Coldplay. All we can do is sit back and cross our fingers. Hopefully our commercial director will make some sort of contact with their management.

Interesting link of the day:

It seems that you can actually buy stamps over the internet.

Well it surprised me anyway. (Thanks to Charlie for the link!)

When working I quite like to listen to something - silence allows my mind to wander. By having something in the background for some reason I stay more focused on the main task at hand - up to a point. Speech kills my concentration as I end up listening more to what is being said than working. This means I need music. The problem with most modern music is it contains lyrics, which I either start singing along to or listening to almost like it was speech. Again the concentration goes.

This has lead me to the conclusion that classical music is my ideal revision partner. I don't have any classical music, so I have to listen to either Classic FM or Radio 3. The problem with listening to radio is that they have DJ's, news, and most annoyingly of all, adverts (either for products or other shows). These things seem designed to break my concentration every five minutes or so. Radio 3 is much better for this, as you would expect with its lack of product adverts and is probably my station of choice for revision at the moment. They're doing a "Beethoven Experience" week at the moment, which basically means they're playing all his music and generally talking about the great man. It gives you a good insight into one of the world's greatest ever composers. More info here

To be fair to the classical stations, the DJs manage to contain themselves a lot better than those on Radio 1. Some of the people on there seem intent on talking for half their shows. It's terrible. To be honest, I'm really not interested in what they have to say. I want to hear the music. Obviously they have to fill a bit, but if you spend more than a minute waffling on between tracks, I'm getting seriously upset. Sadly this happens a lot.

Today my copies of Oasis' and Coldplay's new albums arrived from CDWow. Bang on time for Coldplay, but a week late for Oasis (they had supply issues it seems). I've had no problem with them before so lets not dwell on that.

As for the albums themselves. Having listened to them both now I have to say I'm pretty impressed. Don't Believe the Truth is a cracking album and builds on Heathen Chemistry in the way I had hoped it would - the band is clearly working well together after the personnel changes of a few years ago. The fact that other members of the band are contributing songs takes the pressure of Noel and they're not forced to use everything he comes up with. X&Y is also excellent and demonstrates once again Chris Martin's great songwriting skills. They did a live gig on Radio One tonight which was pretty good, though a bit ragged at times.

Overall, two good purchases I'd say. As was the Kaiser Chiefs' album, Employment, that came last week.

UPDATE: It seems The Times article that I mentioned below was infact wrong when it talked about the size of the towns that were surveyed: 5000 to 150,000 rather than 5000 to 50,000. So that undermines one of my arguments. Ah well. Exeter's a successful shopping City. The High Street is an expensive place to rent because so many people use it. This is bound to mean the largest shops are there. While this is perhaps unfortunate, there are plenty of other places in town for the smaller stores. Furthermore, the fact that the same stores are on the High Street as are in other towns, doesn't mean the place looks the same as everywhere else. Exeter's High Street has the Guildhall on it for example.

Once more I'm going to plunder The Times, this time concerning an article about my home town of Exeter.
Exeter. Or is it Clapham?

The article is right to say we have a "clone" High Street. As I was going through the list in the article I was forced to say yes to everything. What that doesn't take account of though is the fact that High Streets tend to have the highest rent so are likely to be made up of the chain stores who can afford to pay that bit more, and I believe Exeter's rents are particularly high (that is part of the problem in itself). There are plenty of other areas where there are non-chain stores (though one of those areas is currently in rubble as it's being rebuilt by Land Securities - with space for small shops included, if they can afford the rent I suppose!).

What should also be pointed out is this:

"The findings are from a survey of 103 towns, with a population from 5,000 to 50,000, compiled by the New Economics Foundation, an independent think-tank. People were asked to list the first 50 shops they passed along a high street."

Exeter (1) is a city (though some argue town/city are interchangeable), and (2) has a population of 111,078 (2001): See Census of Population of Exeter on the Exeter City Council website.

I suppose it depends how they've defined the City, but it seems a tad artificial to knock out half the population! I feel a letter to the editor coming on! I'll post a copy here if it doesn't make it into the paper.

Nothing other than common sense, but it has added weight when coming from a Doctor (even if he is from Cambridge Uni!). A few quotes from the "Dr Feelgood: On the science of happiness" from Saturday's Times Magazine. Its written by Dr Nick Baylis (Lecturer in Positive Psychology at Cambridge Uni):

"It's not our past that most determines the possibilities open to us: it's what we choose here and now, to make happen in our present and future.... [I]t is the ability to focus our attention on such self-motivating thoughts as these, rather than being mesmerised by negatives, that rests at the very heart of a healthy approach to life."

Perhaps most appropriately of all for me considering my dodgy sleep patterns at the moment:

"Studies show that if our sleep returns to a healthy rhythm we tend to stay depression-free, so it's very important that our bedtime is not worry time."

Interesting stuff, though as I say, common sense if you think about it.

"..[F]or the most part in life, we have far greater ability to choose, and for far greater effect, than we might sometimes realise."

I would have just linked to the page, but it seems The Times doesn't put up it's magazine pages. There's a general link to The Times in my links on the left.

Nick Baylis' Portfolio