Friday, 16 April 2021

Antidote to a Scary World 5

"When was the last time you actually ‘published’ or even tweeted about anything remotely positive ‘Jim’? Happy to contribute but you need to drop the shit cloud image first."

A day early in recognition of tomorrow's significant milestone in national life, and I think the first time quoting from the Church Times, but it's always been a fascination of mine as to who owns what on the High Street and how they run their business. But I've also become increasingly disillusioned with capitalism and long followed examples of beneficence such as that provided by John Elliot of Ebac washing machines, the Lofthouse family of Fisherman's Friend fame and the extraordinary story behind Richer Sounds:-  

For Julian Richer, poorer is better

Julian Richer is a successful (and, accordingly, wealthy) capitalist who believes that the way to improve society is to do as you would be done by. He came to public attention last year when he announced his intention of handing more than 60 per cent of his business, the hi-fi and TV retailer Richer Sounds, to a trust owned by his 530-odd employees. He also celebrated turning 60 by giving each of them £1000 for every year that they had worked for the company.

A flurry of profiles in the national press identified him as “a committed Christian”, but in fact the genesis of his attitude to business long predates his baptism at St Michael le Belfrey, in York, in 2006. The obvious model for his latest move, as he points out, is the founder of the John Lewis Partnership, Spedan Lewis, who famously declared that his aim was “solely to make the world happier and a bit more decent”.

Mr Richer was born in London in 1959, the elder of two children of Percy and Ursula Richer. His father, “a frustrated businessman, but academically very bright”, was the grandson of refugees from the pogroms in Eastern Europe. His mother had grown up in Hamburg, but, in 1934, had emigrated to Palestine (where she briefly married a Major in the British army). Both of them now worked as trainee managers for Marks & Spencer, and young Julian was regaled with stories of visits from its chairman, Lord Marks, who always made a point of checking that the staff lavatories were clean and that the staff canteen served hot meals.

Although it was not from his parents that he acquired what he likes to call his “compassion gene”, Mr Richer says that they were “good people”, who gave him “a wonderful upbringing”. “They taught me right and wrong, and respect and self-discipline, and eating your greens before you have your pudding. They were law-abiding — that was very important. My mum particularly was quite strict.”

The seminal influence in his life was Ernest Polack, his housemaster at Clifton College, the boarding school in Bristol to which (thanks to a bequest from a grandfather) he was sent at the age of 13. He recalls Mr Polack as “a wonderful, wonderful man. He would spend the holidays in South Africa demonstrating against apartheid and getting beaten black and blue, and then he would come back and show us his war wounds. It brings tears to my eyes even now.”

In those days, he himself, he says, was primarily interested in making money. “I was the Artful Dodger with a cheeky grin. I had a chip on my shoulder, and I was very driven. At school, I would watch out of the window all these Bentleys arriving at the weekend and I’d make my dad park his beaten-up Renault round the back.”

During the miners’ strike in 1974, he bought a large case of candles for £3 and got his father to sell them for him through Exchange & Mart for £15. Couldn’t that be described as profiteering? “I admit it,” he says, “and I’m mortified by it now.”

He had already discovered that there was a market among his fellow pupils for recycled hi-fi separates. The previous year, he had picked up a second-hand Bang & Olufsen turntable for £10, cleaned it up and “made it look nice”, and sold it for £22. By the time he was 17, his study was full of stock, and he had three other lads working for him on commission.

When I meet him, the coronavirus is still no more than a small cloud on the horizon. We sit in a booth in a café in Mayfair and drink expensive tea. He seems to be full of nervous energy — it is hard to get even half a question out before he is answering it — and, when I remark that I hear he does 100 press-ups a day, he says: “One hundred and fifty this morning. Not all in one go.” He shows me his to-do list for the day: an A4 sheet of paper close-covered with handwritten instructions to himself.

He opened his first shop, on tiny premises next to London Bridge Station, at the age of 19. “At first, we dribbled along. Then we had a good year when we started buying end-of-line products — our turnover went from something like £120,000 to £600,000. It took three or four years before we really got going. We opened a shop in Stockport, and it went crazy. Then we opened one in Birmingham, and then Leeds, then Edinburgh, Cardiff, and Liverpool.”

When he was 23, he bought himself a second-hand Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow — which he gave to his dad a year later after treating himself to a slightly larger second-hand Silver Spirit.

It was in 1982 that the example of goodness which Mr Polack had set him was reinforced when he read In Search of Excellence, a bestseller by two American management consultants who had looked for the secret of certain businesses’ success. The book sets out eight key principles, but the lesson that Mr Richer drew from it was the overriding importance of treating both his customers and his employees well.

It is hard to differentiate between altruism and self-interest, kind heart, and shrewd head, in the business practices that he has developed since. Early on, for example, he decided that he would buy a holiday home for the use of his staff (whom he prefers to call “colleagues”). “When I went to my bank manager to ask for a mortgage, he said: ‘You don’t need to do this.’ I told him: ‘That’s exactly why I’m doing it.’” Today, the company has a dozen such homes, including apartments in Amsterdam, Paris, Barcelona, and Venice. “Every year, more than 70 per cent of our staff use at least one of them for a free holiday.”

Over 40 years in business, he says, he has learnt that “what you get out of people depends on how you treat them. Is that exploitation? At least we’re all benefiting together. I go the extra mile, and it is a win-win. I’m in a cut-throat world of business, and I want to be better than the competition. I want staff to stay with me and not go elsewhere. I want them to put themselves out for customers. I don’t want them to steal from me: some will, if they’re desperate, but we have phenomenally low levels of theft.”

Every week, he receives a “colleague care report” that updates him on staff morale at each of his 53 stores, and lists every employee who has a physical or mental-health issue or has suffered a bereavement, “with their mobile number, so I can call them. And I do. Not every person every week, but I’m keeping track, and I think that’s terribly powerful. I do it because I care; but, of course, the business benefits also.”

In his own 1995 how-to book, The Richer Way, he acknowledges the “unswerving support” of his wife, Rosie, “without which my modest success would not have been possible”. They bought a Georgian house near York in 1986, and, in time, she decided to attend St Michael le Belfrey, where she had been confirmed as a girl. He started to go with her, “as a passenger”.

“I felt a bit of a fraud, but I enjoyed it. I would sit quietly while she took communion and it was therapeutic after a busy week. Then, one day, the Vicar kind of jumped on me. Someone had tipped him off, I think, that I might have a few bob, and he asked me to host [in my home] an Alpha course he was setting up for businesspeople. Everyone rather enjoyed it; so we did it a second time. And, after about 18 months, I just felt I was ready to be baptised. It wasn’t a single, Damascene moment: it was more of a gradual thing.”

He recalls the day of his baptism as “a really, really special day”. The following year, he was confirmed by the Archbishop of York, Dr Sentamu, in his private chapel in Bishopthorpe Palace.

Today, he describes himself as “Christian-lite”. “We have a weekly Bible-study group in our house whose mission statement is ‘to enrich the lives of others through the message of Jesus’. For me, Christianity is about loving God and loving your neighbour. You know, Jesus was about fairness. Really, he reinforced everything I’d learnt before: from my socialist Jewish housemaster, and from In Search of Excellence. His message broke it down into simple language.”

His drive to succeed is undiminished, but it long ago ceased to be about making money. “We don’t have flash cars any more. We used to have a couple of helicopters and a jet, but — as the Daily Mirror put it — I now take the bus.”

He and Rosie still have far more than they need, he says — last year, The Sunday Times Rich List estimated his net worth at £160 million — and they do not have any children; so his focus has shifted to philanthropy.

His goal in life now, he says, is “to leave a legacy”. “I can try to improve society and leave the world a better place. I’m at an age when I’ve got a lot of experience, I have available time, I have resources that I can put into doing good. And that is my real satisfaction and joy.”

He has set up numerous not-for-profit initiatives. Acts 435, launched ten years ago by Dr Sentamu, took its name from the Bible verse that relates that the early Christians sold property “and put [the proceeds] at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need”.

The concept is simple: through church volunteers, it connects people who are struggling financially with others who want to help them directly. The minimum donation is £10, but every penny goes to someone in need, as the modest overheads are more than covered by Gift Aid receipts.

It took several years to get anyone in the Church of England interested in the idea, but, today, Mr Richer says, with obvious pride, more than 400 congregations are involved in a scheme that has helped more than 20,000 people.

In 2018 — the year when his second book, The Ethical Capitalist, came out — he set up the think tank Taxwatch to investigate and expose aggressive tax avoidance, which, he believes, denies the public purse at least £50 billion a year. “If you think that the entire prison service, which is bursting at the seams, costs only £3 billion a year to run, can you imagine how much good could be done if we collected that money?

“The criminal justice system, likewise, is starved of cash: lots of people can’t get legal aid now, and many bankrupt themselves proving their innocence. The whole benefits system is terribly hostile. I’ve written a paper on social housing, I feel so strongly about that. In all of these things, the poorest and the weakest in our society are treated very badly.”

He speaks with even greater passion about his new campaign against imposed zero-hours contracts. “Maybe a million people are on zero-hours contracts that they don’t want. Never mind the poverty it causes: just think of the daily misery of not knowing if you’re going to have enough money for food or rent. And women being sent home early — ‘We don’t need you today, love, it’s quiet’ — and they still have to pay for the child care they’ve arranged. It absolutely burns me up with anger.”

In February, with support from the CBI and the TUC, he launched the Good Business Charter, an accreditation scheme that requires businesses to make a commitment to ten specific pledges: a real living wage; fairer hours and contracts; employee well-being; employee representation; diversity and inclusion; environmental responsibility; paying fair tax; commitment to customers; ethical sourcing; and prompt payment.

Common to all of these concerns is fairness, he says, and he intends also, when the coronavirus allows, to set up a fairness foundation. “I want the greatest thinkers and writers of the day to contribute to a debate about how we can improve our society, and hopefully start a groundswell of public opinion.”

In the past, he has made donations to the Conservatives, but he is “absolutely determined now” to be non-party-political. “Everyone has got good in them, and I’d rather look for that. I’d rather find areas of commonality where we can work together and bring different sides together. Let’s not be tribal: let’s just try to make the world a better place.”

24 comments:

  1. Health Service Journal:

    "Matt Hancock omitted to declare his connection to a company owned by his close family, despite it winning a place on a framework to provide services to the English NHS in 2019, as well as contracts with the NHS in Wales.

    Topwood Ltd, which specialises in secure waste disposal, successfully won a tender competition to secure a place on an NHS Shared Business Services framework for “confidential waste destruction and disposal” at the beginning of 2019. Mr Hancock was appointed health and social care secretary in July 2018.

    There is no suggestion Mr Hancock was involved in any contract awards, but the ministerial code says ministers have a “personal responsibility… to decide whether and what action is needed to avoid a conflict or the perception of a conflict”

    Securing a place on the framework makes it easier for local NHS organisations to use the firm for their waste disposal services, by providing a “compliant route to market”, according to the published contract award notice."

    Its all perfectly normal.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I consider myself a socialist,and hold some very strong views, but I have no problem with someones success or the wealth that comes with that success.
    It's how it's achieved that's important, how that wealth is used, and how people are carried along on the journey rather then exploited for their labour.
    I didn't realise Richer Sounds was a company run as described above, but Mr Richers approach to business reminds of Saltaire and Bournville. Treat your workers well, let them share in some of your successes, and give fair reward for their labour. Such an approach brings loyalty and commitment to the employer, a sense of purpose and belonging to the emploee.
    Where Capitalism stinks is where people like (still a Sir) Philip Green can exploit his work force, and legally use methods to create an enormous wealth that only he is the beneficiary of, avoiding taxes, and trampling on others, not because he needs to but because he can!
    If someone's managed to create success and wealth, lood luck to them. That is as long as they haven't done it by exploitation and nefarious methods to enhance their wealth.
    Having wealth is OK. Being greedy and unconcerned about how that wealth is achieved is really not OK.
    We need more people like Mr Richer and Mr Timpson.

    'Getafix

    ReplyDelete
  3. HaHa!! Fooled Ya!! Those cheeky Tories have executed another ambush, protecting their bullying & abusive chums from interfering do-gooders.

    "The government is facing growing anger after voting against putting serial stalkers and domestic abusers on a national register, despite briefing they were likely to support the measures following the death of Sarah Everard.

    Conservative MPs voted against amendments to the domestic abuse bill on Thursday that would have placed serial domestic abusers and stalkers on the current Violent and Sex Offender Register.

    MPs also voted down House of Lords-supported amendments that would have given family court judges training on sexual abuse and provided greater protection to migrant victims of domestic violence."

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/apr/16/anger-tory-mps-vote-against-register-stalkers-domestic-abusers

    ReplyDelete
  4. Interesting post, Jim. So many themes to pick up, but I am going with Tom Peters' "In pursuit of Excellence". And even then, many themes to pick up. I recall as a Probation Manager, this being the new kid on the block, and we all got a copy, there were briefings and sessions expounding the new mantra. I was new to Probation and management, it all felt very exciting at the time, looking back, this was when we started to embrace managerialism and the language of "business". Nonetheless, keen as I was, I watched a video of Tom Peters banging on in his evangelist way about progress. Bear with me, this is about the mess Probation is in... He put his jacket on the back of a chair, then pointed at the chair and said "A Problem! There is the problem! We must examine this problem" then lifted the chair to that his head was engulfed by the chair and jacket. Whichever way he turned his face was still smothered by the problem. Trite example of how obsessing about the negative will prevent embracing opportunity. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you OASys and Risk-averse management. What goes around comes around.
    Pearly Gates

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lengthy read.

      https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/22/capitalism-broken-better-future-can-it-do-that?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQHKAFQArABIA%3D%3D#aoh=16186425566665&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fcommentisfree%2F2019%2Fmay%2F22%2Fcapitalism-broken-better-future-can-it-do-that

      Delete
  5. Caution: Dirty Shagger On The Loose & as stupid as ever

    "Boris Johnson's visit to India will still go ahead later this month despite the country's soaring coronavirus cases and a new variant there, No 10 says."

    And despite a crushingly oppressive regime.

    In a bizarre mirror-image of history maybe he's going to learn some new tactics for quelling an uprising from Narendra Modi, aka regaining sovereignty and rekindling our imperial legacy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Did I imagine it but what happened to the string of posts about pay . Did you remove them JB and or were you pressured.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is always a risk of some tension when using quotes from social media sites, even if anonymised, and following two complaints I decided to delete the whole post.

      The only reason I have used such quotes on rare occasions is because I believe the issues being discussed deserve to be brought to the attention of a wider audience and especially as a way of informing decision makers.

      I would make the point that in coming to its robust conclusions regarding Transforming Rehabilitation, the National Audit Office specifically cited this public blog and the anonymous contributions by staff as having played a significant part in the evaluation process.

      Delete
    2. Thank JB for your candid response and recognise the blog as the valued and influential barometer to the audit report. Clearly nafo could not generate anywhere near the real temperature sounding for staff that this blog has captured over years what a real shame. Well done and thanks for telling us what you were thinking.

      Delete
  7. This is how bullies behave.

    "Scores of people who could be key witnesses to deaths in detention may have been “deliberately” deported before they could give evidence, it has been claimed. And it has also emerged that the home secretary, Priti Patel, failed to address concerns from a coroner last year that the actions of her department could have undermined police investigations.

    Patel was informed last August of concerns from a coroner that Home Office officials possibly “chose to ignore the fact” that witnesses to the contentious death of a black detainee were due to give evidence before attempting to remove them from the UK.

    Despite the coroner asking Patel to intervene to curb a practice that was compromising police investigations into deaths in immigration detention centres, her response did not address the issue."

    No surprise then that Patel supports the Narendra Modi government and is happy to send anyone anywhere if it pleases her or her friends:

    "In a victory for Narendra Modi government, UK Home Secretary Priti Patel on Friday has approved the extradition of fugitive diamond merchant Nirav Modi, wanted in India on charges of fraud and money laundering" ... Nirav's lawyers argued he would not face a fair trial in India, that he was at risk of not receiving suitable medical attention and other human rights grounds.

    Maybe Nirav will be sharing a lift with PM Johnson on Monday?

    Human Rights Watch 2020 report:

    "The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) won the May 2019 elections with a majority to return Prime Minister Narendra Modi for a second term. The Modi government continued its widespread practice of harassing and sometimes prosecuting outspoken human rights defenders, and journalists for criticizing government officials and policies.

    In August, the government revoked the special constitutional status of Jammu and Kashmir and split the province into two separate federally governed territories. Before the announcement, the government deployed additional troops to the province, shut down the internet and phones, and placed thousands of people in preventive detention, prompting international condemnation.

    The government failed to properly enforce Supreme Court directives to prevent and investigate mob attacks, often led by BJP supporters, on religious minorities and other vulnerable communities.

    In the northeast state of Assam, a citizenship verification project excluded nearly two million people, mostly of Bengali ethnicity, many of them Muslim, putting them at risk of statelessness."

    https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2020/country-chapters/india#

    And the US are not impressed by Modi's government either:

    "Modi govt’s human rights abuse is under serious scrutiny - The report by United States State Department, in addition to media muzzling, also identifies torture, arbitrary arrest and detention among the rights abuses in India"

    https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/opinion/us-state-dept-report-after-freedom-house-v-dem-modi-govts-human-rights-abuse-is-under-serious-scrutiny

    A lengthy article giving context to Modi's actions:

    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/12/09/blood-and-soil-in-narendra-modis-india

    Still, its not Saudi I suppose.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "in May 2014, Narendra Modi, leader of the BJP, was elected, swept to power on a standard-issue neoliberal platform of modernisation, privatisation and liberalisation of the economy, slashing welfare budgets, lowering corporate taxes, abolishing wealth taxes, etc." - sound familiar?

      "Modi seems to have been following the playbook of Viktor Orbán, that country’s prime minister, except that Modi has added religious and ethnic dimensions to his programme. But the formula seems pretty similar, based as it is on a thumping electoral majority and weak parliamentary opposition. The formula is to promise economic reform and then, when that falters, suppress opposition, control mainstream – and then social – media and undermine the judicial system. To this Modi has added his own distinctive flourish: radical and sustained use of internet shutdowns to hamper the mobilisation of opposition."

      Johnson, Modi, Orban, Putin, MBS, Xi, Erdogan... anyone starting to see a pattern here?

      https://www.theguardian.com/technology/commentisfree/2021/apr/17/tech-giants-happy-to-do-narendra-modis-bidding-indian-market-facebook-twitter

      Delete
    2. What a shame that the Dirty Shagger can't see these things for himself. There is simply no compelling argument for him to travel to India.

      "Labour has urged Boris Johnson to “set an example” and cancel his forthcoming trip to India because of the Covid risk.

      Steve Reed, the shadow communities secretary, said because of the threat posed by new variants, the prime minister should abandon plans to fly to India later this month and instead hold his scheduled meetings via Zoom."

      Delete
  8. "The former prime minister took part in a virtual call with the German ambassador in November in which senior Greensill representatives discussed introducing Earnd, a system that allows staff to draw their salary in instalments, to the country’s civil service."

    Isn't that more generally known as 'being paid'?

    Who is given their year's salary in one single lump sum? Maybe Cameron would like to enlighten us to this mysterious practice?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sunday's homework:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/18/obscure-maths-bayes-theorem-reliability-covid-lateral-flow-tests-probability

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maths quiz. If you take a Covid test that only gives a false positive one time in every 1,000, what’s the chance that you’ve actually got Covid? Surely it’s 99.9%, right?

      No! The correct answer is: you have no idea. You don’t have enough information to make the judgment.

      This is important to know when thinking about “lateral flow tests” (LFTs), the rapid Covid tests that the government has made available to everyone in England, free, up to twice a week. The idea is that in time they could be used to give people permission to go into crowded social spaces – pubs, theatres – and be more confident that they do not have, and so will not spread, the disease. They’ve been used in secondary schools for some time now.

      There are concerns over LFTs. One is whether they’ll miss a large number of cases, because they’re less sensitive than the slower but more precise polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. Those concerns are understandable, although defenders of the test say that PCR testing is too sensitive, able to detect viral material in people who had the disease weeks ago, while LFTs should, in theory, only detect people who are infectious.

      But another concern is that they will tell people that they do have the disease when in fact they don’t – that they will return false positives.

      The government says – accurately – that the “false positive rate”, the chance of a test returning a positive result in a person who does not have the disease, is less than one in 1,000. And that’s where we came in: you might think that that means, if you’ve had a positive result, that there’s a less than one in 1,000 chance that it’s false.

      It’s not. And that’s because of a fascinating little mathematical anomaly known as Bayes’s theorem, named after the Rev Thomas Bayes, an 18th-century clergyman and maths nerd.

      Bayes’s theorem is written, in mathematical notation, as P(A|B) = (P(B|A)P(A))/P(B). It looks complicated. But you don’t need to worry about what all those symbols mean: it’s fairly easy to understand when you think of an example.

      Imagine you undergo a test for a rare disease. The test is amazingly accurate: if you have the disease, it will correctly say so 99% of the time; if you don’t have the disease, it will correctly say so 99% of the time.

      But the disease in question is very rare; just one person in every 10,000 has it. This is known as your “prior probability”: the background rate in the population.

      So now imagine you test 1 million people. There are 100 people who have the disease: your test correctly identifies 99 of them. And there are 999,900 people who don’t: your test correctly identifies 989,901 of them.

      But that means that your test, despite giving the right answer in 99% of cases, has told 9,999 people that they have the disease, when in fact they don’t. So if you get a positive result, in this case, your chance of actually having the disease is 99 in 9,999, or just under 1%. If you took this test entirely at face value, then you’d be scaring a lot of people, and sending them for intrusive, potentially dangerous medical procedures, on the back of a misdiagnosis.

      Without knowing the prior probability, you don’t know how likely it is that a result is false or true. If the disease was not so rare – if, say, 1% of people had it – your results would be totally different. Then you’d have 9,900 false positives, but also 9,990 true positives. So if you had a positive result, it would be more than 50% likely to be true.

      This is not a hypothetical problem. One review of the literature found that 60% of women who have annual mammograms for 10 years have at least one false positive; another study found that 70% of prostate cancer screening positives were false. An antenatal screening procedure for foetal chromosomal disorders which claimed “detection rates of up to 99% and false positive rates as low as 0.1%” would have actually returned false positives between 45% and 94% of the time, because the diseases are so rare, according to one paper.

      Delete
    2. Of course, it’s not that a positive test would immediately be taken as gospel – patients who have a positive test will be given more comprehensive diagnostic checkups – but they will scare a lot of patients who don’t have cancer, or foetal abnormalities.

      A misunderstanding of Bayes’s theorem isn’t just a problem in medicine. There is a common failure in the law courts, the “prosecutor’s fallacy”, which hinges on it too.

      In 1990, a man called Andrew Deen was convicted of rape and sentenced to 16 years, partly on the basis of DNA evidence. An expert witness for the prosecution said that the chance that the DNA came from someone else was just one in 3m.

      But as a professor of statistics explained at Deen’s appeal, this was mixing up two questions: first, how likely would it be that a person’s DNA matched the DNA in the sample, given that they were innocent; and second, how likely would they be to be innocent, if their DNA matched that of the sample? The “prosecutor’s fallacy” is to treat those two questions as the same.

      We can treat it exactly as we did with the cancer screenings and Covid tests. Let’s say you have simply picked your defendant at random from the British population (which of course you wouldn’t, but for simplicity…), which at the time was about 60 million. So your prior probability that any random person is the murderer is one in 60m.

      If you ran your DNA test on all of those 60 million people, you’d identify the murderer – but you’d also get false positives on about 20 innocent people. So even though the DNA test only returns false positives one time in 3m, there’s still about a 95% chance that someone who gets a positive test is innocent.

      Of course, in reality, you wouldn’t pick your defendant at random – you’d have other evidence, and your prior probability would be greater than one in 60m. But the point is that knowing the probability of a false positive on a DNA test doesn’t tell you how likely it is that someone is innocent: you need some assessment of how likely it was that they were guilty to begin with. You need a prior probability. In December 1993, the court of appeal quashed Deen’s conviction, saying it was unsafe – precisely because the judge and the expert witness had been taken in by the prosecutor’s fallacy. (It’s worth noting that he was convicted in the retrial.)

      And in 1999, the heartbreaking case of Sally Clark turned on the prosecutor’s fallacy. She was convicted of murdering her two children, after another expert witness said that the chance of two babies dying of sudden infant death syndrome (Sids) in one family was one in 73m. But the witness failed to take into account the prior probability – that is, the likelihood that someone was a double murderer, which is, mercifully, even rarer than Sids. That, taken with other problems – the expert witness didn’t take into account the fact that families which have already had one case of Sids are more likely to have another – led to Clark’s conviction also being overturned, in 2003.

      Let’s go back to the LFT tests. Assume that the one-in-1,000 false positive rate is accurate. But even if it is, and you get a positive result, you don’t know how likely it is that you have the virus. What you need to know first is (roughly) how likely it was, before you took the test, that you might have had it: your prior probability.

      At the peak of the second wave, something like one person in every 50 (2% of the population) in England was infected with the virus, according to the Office for National Statistics’ prevalence survey. That was carried out with PCR tests, not LFTs, but let’s use that as the standard.

      Delete
    3. Say you tested 1 million people, chosen at random, with LFTs (and, for the sake of simplicity, say that they detect all the real cases – that definitely won’t be true in reality). About 20,000 people would have the disease, and of the 980,000 who don’t, it would wrongly tell about 980 that they do, for a total of 20,980 positive results. So if you tested positive, your chance of a false positive would be 980/20,980, or nearly 5%. Or, to put it another way, it’d be almost 95% likely that you really had the disease.

      Now, though, the prevalence has dropped enormously – down to about one person in every 340 in England. If we run through the same process, we get a very different picture: of your million people, about 2,950 will have had it. Again assuming your test identifies all of them (and again remembering that won’t be true in reality), you’ll have 2,950 true positives, and about 997 false ones. Suddenly your false positive rate is 997/3,947, or about 25%. In fact, last week government data showed that the false positive rate for LFTs since 8 March was 18%. This rate will rise if prevalence falls – which might become problematic if, for instance, it means an entire class of children has to take time off school.

      These sums only apply, of course, if you’re truly testing the population at random. If people are using the tests because they think there’s a good reason why they might be positive – perhaps they have symptoms, or were recently exposed to someone who had the disease – then your prior probability would be higher, and the positive test would be stronger evidence.

      Even doctors struggle with Bayesian reasoning. In one 2013 study, 5,000 qualified American doctors were asked to give the probability that someone had cancer, if 1% of the population had the disease and they received a positive result on a 90% accurate test. The correct answer was about one in 10, but even when given a multiple-choice answer, almost three-quarters of the doctors answered wrongly.

      None of this means LFTs are a bad idea – I think, cautiously, that they will be useful, especially since positive results will be confirmed by PCR, and if the PCR comes back negative the patient can return to work or school or whatever. But it’s worth remembering that, if you read that a test is 99.9% accurate, it doesn’t mean that there’s a 99.9% chance that your test result is correct. In fact, it’s much more complicated than that.

      Tom Chivers is the science editor at UnHerd

      Delete
    4. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/corporate-state-capture/

      Delete
    5. British Ministers and MPs operate with uniquely close ties to business. These ties are an essential feature of the neoliberal transformation of the state. Their vulnerability to conflicts of interest and corruption are a feature, not a bug. Under the New Public Management agenda of the last forty years, agenda-setting and policy design have increasingly been outsourced to professional consultancies, third-sector agencies, law and accountancy firms and corporate sponsored think tanks. The administrative, policy–making and agenda-revising throughputs of the state have seen greater business involvement via senior civil service recruitment and special advisors. Departmental non-executive directors have significant powers but are routinely recruited through an opaque process from businesses with a direct interest in the terrain under a department’s control. Finally, the state’s core outputs in terms of welfare and regulation have been ever more outsourced to the private sector. The machinery of state is now porous to private business interests to a degree that is exceptional among the established democracies. A third of today’s central government spending goes on outsourcing.

      Britain’s neoliberal state has become a semi-permeable membrane in which governments refrain from intervening in the private sector but enable ever greater business access to public authority and revenue. ‘Corporate state capture’ refers to the high point of corruption whereby private interests subvert legitimate channels of political influence and shape the rules of the legislative and institutional game through private payments to public officials. In Britain that influence has largely been gifted as a matter of public policy.

      Britain’s corporate state capture by design has happened because neoliberalism is a materialist utopia. It is, in fact, the exact counterpart to its Soviet communist opponent albeit even less tethered to social reality in its theoretical foundations. Where Leninism was based on a deterministic reading of Marx’s analysis of capitalist change, British neoliberal policy has been rooted in the most market-fundamentalist wing of neoclassical economics that depends on deductive-theoretic mathematical reasoning and tends to disregard market failures. The result is an agenda of beguiling simplicity. In this scheme, it is axiomatic that when you remove state intervention you improve competitiveness and allow the economy to move closer towards a general equilibrium in which demand and supply are matched with a perfect, frictionless efficiency. This is the mirror of the Soviet belief in perfectly efficient central planning.

      For Britain’s neoliberal governments, it has followed as a matter of logic that the more the state can be ‘got out of the way’ or made more ‘business-like’ where it remains, the better. As a society we have moved from ethical debates about the effective government of people in a complex and uncertain world to an era in which parties have competed over the management of a pseudo-science about the allocation of things in a closed-system world of apparently little meaningful complexity at all. The seeds of state capture are sown in materialist utopias because as an article of faith they privilege the interests of one social group as the virtuous, transformative vanguard that will lead us to the Promised Land of seamless allocative efficiency. In neoliberalism it is business rather than the industrial proletariat taken to exemplify the idealised rational economic agent and business is duly endowed with the ‘leading role’ in society.

      Delete
    6. In Britain, this idealisation has led successive governments to a deep lack of curiosity about the diversity and complexity of actual businesses. It has also created a profound political complacency about what drives innovation and improves productivity. The history of economic development, as distinct from the neoclassical thought experiment, tells us it is not just ‘competition’. Despite the fact that the investment culture of Britain’s traded companies has been hollowed out by norms of short term profit-maximisation, governments have proved resiliently indifferent to the pathologies of corporate financialisation: the extraction of profit even unto the cannibalisation of the firm itself. John McDonnell ended this complacency in Labour, but it persists across the aisle. In the meantime, Britain’s public sector industry firms are among the most financialised of all. Carillion and Interserve went bust because of it. Serco and the rest continue to leverage their accounts, minimise their investment and training and to sweat their public contracts and employment conditions to maximise profits. The result is a new systemic risk in which the state’s structural dependency upon these archetypes of rent-seeking makes them ‘too big to fail’.

      The neoliberal argument for state failure that helped bring it to power in the late 1970s was built on an argument by theoretical analogy: that the state is a monopoly firm and hence the presumptively ‘rational’ economic actors who run it will tend to exploit their position until the state expands into a totalitarian, socialist Leviathan. There is no concept of public service here. The neoliberal ‘solution’ proceeds to build in corporate state capture via an analytical ratchet effect in which even chronic failures of neoliberal policy are assumed a priori to be the fault of public servants and their lingering attachments to the privileges of monopoly. It follows as a matter of logic that the answer is to bring in further corporate ‘expertise’ to bear.

      In the meantime, privileged corporate access skews ministerial interactions with other interest groups and unbalances the playing field between them. The extension of public services markets to encompass as many state functions as possible encourages escalating corporate donations to parties in search of favouritism within that dynamic. Contrary to the neoliberal and indeed Leninist fantasy in which the state will wither away to its ‘nightwatchman’ minimum, the centralising neoliberal state has become a giant of procurement. Government departments are tied into a complex web of relationships with large enterprises scarcely less than in Soviet central planning, only now in super-fragmented form. Those relationships shift whole bodies of public spending from statutory to contract law and under the cloak of commercial confidentiality.

      Delete
  10. Shock Horror! UK minister demonstrates a total lack of understanding of anything, let alone the concerns about the chumocracy:

    "Speaking on Sky News on Sunday morning, Eustice said there was “nothing wrong with ministers having financial interests and declaring them”. He said that Hancock’s involvement in Topwood was only public knowledge because he had declared it, and that Hancock had not been involved in any decisions on procurement - removing the conflict of interest."

    Its all perfectly normal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shock Horror! Businesses take the piss, senior managers fill their pockets, government support their abusive practices:

      "Nearly 70% of companies accused of launching fire-and-rehire assaults on workers’ wages and conditions are making a profit and half have claimed government support during the pandemic.

      Ministers have insisted that firms in financial difficulty must have the flexibility to offer new terms and conditions.

      Analysis of financial reports by the Observer shows 9 of the 13 private employers accused over the past year of threatening to dismiss and re-engage staff on worse contracts have managed to maintain healthy profit margins, with some even increasing executive pay."

      Its all perfectly normal.

      Delete
  11. "In an unusually frank interview for a senior officer, given to mark his retirement as chief constable of Merseyside police, Andy Cooke said that if he was given £5bn to cut crime, he would put £1bn into law enforcement and £4bn into tackling poverty."

    Maybe the Eton Boys could assist?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Wasn't going to be too long before Dildo Hardon's name cropped up in the Greensill affair...

    "The Tory peer who chairs NHS England is facing demands to explain why he helped arrange for Greensill Capital to lobby senior health service bosses, with Labour describing his role as “shocking”.

    Lord Prior of Brampton is facing questions over a meeting he organised between the now collapsed finance firm’s founder Lex Greensill and the overall boss of the NHS and its chief financial officer.

    Prior – a former Tory MP, health minister and Tory party deputy chair – also helped to facilitate a meeting at which Lex Greensill was able to lobby Lady Harding, the Tory peer who chairs NHS Improvement, the health service’s financial regulator.
    What is the Greensill lobbying scandal and who is involved?
    Read more

    That encounter led to Greensill being able to meet the chief executives of a number of NHS hospital trusts whose support he was seeking for a scheme to let the NHS’s 1.4m staff in England be paid daily by Greensill, via an app called Earnd, rather than monthly in what Labour said was a latter-day “junk bonds” exercise.

    Harding is best known as the boss of the government’s heavily-criticised £37bn test and trace programme."

    ReplyDelete