Offshored jobs coming home.

Now the good news

Gloom was expected this morning when I called on Lloyds TSB in Newport.

They concentrate on home insurance and their staff and financial resources have been under great strain after the inundation of flood claims. But everyone was very chipper. I witnessed staff making very welcome courtesy calls to customers bringing them up to date with their flood claims. Everyone was in a good mood including the flood victims.

A few years ago there was great worry that Lloyds TSB jobs were being syphoned out of Newport to India. At the time I urged customers to use their power to complain if service levels faltered. The move was unpopular and the export of jobs has now  dried up. Even better 60 offshored jobs have been moved back here.

There are a valuable 1100 quality Lloyds TSB jobs here. These will steadily grow to about 1400 in 2011. The site is an attractive parkland one and the interior of the building is having an agreeable makeover.

The firm is a major contributor to the Welsh economy with 5,500 employees and 115 branches. They also distribute £1.3 million to welsh charities.

Altogether a great success story for the company and Newport.

Implausible truth
What a refreshing change.

Forget the fevered cynicism about politicians castigated as evil, cynical, money-grabbing, obsessed headline-seeking megalomaniacs.

At last there is a fictionalised drama of British politics that come close to the truth. Tonight on  of Radio Four a news series named 10 Downing Street began.

It is well written gripping account of a PM who is idealistic, well-meaning but encumbered by human frailties. Not everything goes right, but his motives are good.

Is it too much to ask the country ?  Has cynicism become so deeply ingrained that it's  not  plausible to believe in a  politician who tries to do good? The truth is that this series faithfully represent the mass of British politicians.

Fewer liberties
The hard-core civil libertarians have got it wrong this time.
There was a knee-jerk reactions to the suggestion of a universal DNA data-base.  Not all infringement of our liberties are bad.

There is no significant loss of liberty or personal autonomy is allowing our DNA details to be known. But there are major advantages in deterring and detecting crime. Already perpetrators of past crime have been brought to justice by DNA identification.

The suggestion that the files should be kept for a limited period than destroyed like driving penalty points is daft.  It not a punishment to hold anyone's DNA.

There's another good reason. There is an embryo company at Imperial Park Newport waiting to make a major contribution to DNA analyses.

It's all good news.

Comments

[valleylad]

Govt is there to serve the people not the other way round. If they want my DNA they should need a damm good reason. The current situation has arisen since HMG chose to "normalise" the then criminal and corrupt police behaviour of illegally retaining samples from suspects. The simple solution is to the same as most civilised countries (e.g. Scotland), unless convicted no retention, unless arrested the police have no right to a sample, but can ask nicely.

The current authoritarian govt has created a whole plethora of new criminal offences, as well as ASBO's and control orders. None have made us safer. They do however give Plod many many new powers to enable him to inflict his will on people without their consent. The police have shown time and time again that given a tool they will use whenever they think they can get away with it.

A case in point, Walter Wolfgang - either the police genuinely and reasonably believed he was a terrorist or they were criminal scum who deserved public crucifixion.

Most of what you campaign on I strongly support, but population databases of either DNA, or to back biometric ID cards are both unreasonable and disproportionate.

[Paul Flynn]

Thanks for your comment ValleyLad.

First, I agree entirely with you about the mis-use of powers to retain Walter Wolfgang. The members of the Labour party do too and voted him top of the poll in the Executive election results.

But there have been restrictions and obstacles placed as safeguards on police powers. I am constantly told that they are burdened with paper work.

But a universal DNA database offers great advantages to all law abiding citizens. What loss is there is having our DNA on file? Such a data base would be of limited value if only convicted criminals are included. How do you detect people committing their first crime? DNA offers us a brilliant new way of deterring crime. What's the objection to using it? Which of our liberties would be lost?

[valleylad]

The most important freedom - Privacy. Unless someone is doing something that constitutes grounds for arrest (and thanks to this govt thats been massively expanded), people should be free to go about their business without interference.

Govt has already had a good try and nicking our medical records (clause 26 if I remember of the Health and Social care act)

Safeguards on the police is a laugh, unless you're on the wrong end of their guns. See how seriously our armed forces would treat the accidental discharge of a weapon and then compare with the same in a civilian context (the Muslim postie I forget his name).

Add in de Menzies, the civil contigencies act, the US airbase protesters, the guy with his lone protest outside the commons and the lady who was arrested for reading the names of our recent war dead at the cenotaph.

For intrusive or serious issues there are no safeguards.

The police have an impossible job currently *thanks* to their political masters. Thatcher made them political during the miners strike, little has changed. One of the many nu labour crime bills made ity an offence not to identify yourself to a police officer - disgusting. At least the relationship between civilians and the police is more appropriately controlled in the USA.

Yes they are drowning in paperwork , but there again when did we last have a sane and able home secretary and a home office "fit for purpose"? I'll give the current incumbent the benefit of the doubt, but if had to name the 3 worst of the lat 20 years it would be Howard, Straw & Blunkett.
(I'd replace Straw with Maxwell Fyfe in alltime worst top three)

As long as I commit no crime and pay my taxes I believe the government should hold absolutely as little as possible data on me as is feasible and compartmentalised in accordance with our data protection act. Again something HMG are trying to spin their way around with the phrase "joined up govt".

DNA profiling is not as accurate as fingerprinting, yet we have the scottish shambles (Shirley McKie) to show how bad fingerprint examination is.

Your last paragraph makes me think a new slogan for nu labour should be "tough on crime - after the event". I doubt a DNA database would deter anyone and will not lead to catching anyone committing their first crime - although it may lead to their arrest after the event.

I always meant to ask you about the "good socialist reasons" for ID cards you mentioned years ago on your site!

"Those who would give up liberty to purchase a little temporary security deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin

[Paul Flynn]

Thanks, again.

You haver a view of government as malign force out to oppress their citizens. While I agree there have been bad exceptions including those you quote, that is not the case here.

In tomorrow's night Argus (and on their database now) are two powerful examples of two local crimes that would not have been solved without DNA samples.

You seem to disregard the powerful value of DNA. That's worth more than minute loss of privacy of infringement of liberty. This is taken thge Civil Liberty argument too far.

The comment about identity card was about the case made by Jeff Rooker about 15 years ago. I have voted against the present proposal which I believe is impractical.