I’ve written to the Managing Director of KFC:

I am writing to ask for your personal intervention over a local dispute regarding lamppost banners advertising a KFC.

KFC Crouch End is situated in the heart of a Victorian parade and many residents feel strongly that the design and frequency of the KFC banners attached to streetlights are too obtrusive for the unique Victorian street scene.

Sadly, pleas to Haringey Council to remove the banners have fallen on deaf ears. Officials cite binding contract with yourselves as reason why these inappropriate ads cannot be withdrawn. I therefore am appealing to you directly to respond to the concerns of local residents and to withdraw the ads. Even if campaign has been initiated by a local franchise, as the brand owner I am sure you will be able to bring considerable influence to bear to resolve this matter.

I would be more than happy to make vigorous representations on your behalf to receive a full refund to recuperate the cost of the remaining term of the contract and ensure you do not suffer any penalties.

I would very much hope that KFC is committed to working with our community to preserve its special character. I have little doubt that such a magnanimous gesture will reap benefits in terms of positive publicity and goodwill with your customers.

Update: good news! The banners are to come down this week.

Here’s my column from this week’s Ham & High:

Hey diddle, diddle – are we the mugs who got diddled? As one financial institution after another crashes into trouble, will it be just Northern Rock the taxpayer has to bail out, or will be end up picking up the pieces for even more blunders?

Between them HSBC, RBS, Barclays and HBOS (as was) have written off $52.9 billion – without any individuals being held responsible. Imagine the outrage there would be if the government had lost even a fraction of that amount of money.

At least we’re not US taxpayers – who are going to have to foot the bill for bailing out a huge chunk of their financial system. The “masters of the universe” turned out to be rather puny – not nearly as smart as they thought but – just to add a grating edge, leading their firms into disaster hasn’t stopped them walking away with huge pay packets and pension pots, either in the US or in the UK.

When it comes to bombs or banks – governments always find the money to send in the troops or to bail out the banks. That’s certainly not the story when it comes to public services like health, education or the police – or post offices for that matter!

The ability of a bank to come crashing down with wider consequences does make them a sort-of special case, but this knowledge that the taxpayer may have to bail them out should come with consequences: not just effective regulation, but also personal responsibility. If you make cause a firm to crash, why on earth should you still be picking up bonuses for your performance? That is an obscenity.

And lo and behold – Gordon was in full agreement with me about this last Sunday in his television interview with Andrew Marr – but outside of trying to gain brownie points for being against obscene bonuses – had no methodology to deal with them. Also – ‘scuse me – but wasn’t he Chancellor for the last 10 years when he did absolutely nothing to stop the orgy of irresponsible borrowing, lending, cheap credit and obscene bonuses?

Much of the crisis management we’ve seen in the last few months has been about merging firms. Understandable in the circumstances – but is a financial system of fewer, bigger firms really going to be more resilient in the long-run – and that’s leaving aside the worry that fewer firms will means less competition will means even more banking rip-offs for you and I.

I fear that driven by the desperate need to keep things going now, we are going to end up with a financial system that can very easily fail again because with a smaller number of larger firms, the fallout from one going wrong in the future will be much, more worse.

Strength in the financial system should come from diversity – a large number of firms so that one mistake doesn’t infect the whole system (and also so that most are small enough that those running them can’t simply assume that if they get it wrong someone will bail them out). It’s not just nostalgia to think back warmly to the days of local banks and building societies – there is real merit in promoting diversity too.

But we should also turn our eyes to the auditing profession. Where have the auditors been? We now know just how risky the financial plans were of many firms – but where were the warnings from the auditors about the assumptions that the businesses were staking their futures on? There is a question about the relative roles of auditors and non-executive directors in supervising and highlighting risks – but between them they failed. Just as we are seeing major restructuring amongst firms, we should also see a major rethink amongst auditors. If they fail to warn properly about the sort of financial risks we have seen come home to roost, are they really doing all that we should want auditors to do?

So all in all – it’s us who are being diddled. At every turn our financial well-being has been last on anyone’s list!

A short piece I wrote for Insight Public Affairs’s 2008/9 guide to lobbying:

I developed an aversion to lobbyists when I was a candidate for election to Parliament. Given it is the job of lobbyists to seduce actual and would-be MPs, so that they will regard their cause or client favourably, you might think something had gone wrong. It had!

And it’s a shame – because so many of the organisations and causes that lobbied me had views that should have found me a willing audience.

What went wrong? Generally lobbyists didn’t understand how and when to present their case. As it’s simplest – candidates in elections are at their very busiest in the immediate run-up to an election. So is that the best time to approach? No! Yet many organisations stay quiet for four years and then suddenly think the four weeks of a general election are the best time to make contact. There are good and bad times all through the Parliamentary cycle – and you’ve got to know them.

And the amount of money organisations pour into the glossy brochures and lobby companies needs to be well spent. From what I could see – it was more about the lobbyists ticking boxes and telling their clients that they had contacts x-thousand of candidates and had x responses.

No – my advice to those who seek my support is to think about me. Think about my time commitment. Think what will really benefit the cause – and what you really want me to do, and how to break it down into simple, easy to get started requests. Then you will build up a dialogue and in time a long-term relationship.

My life is over-flowing with information. You may want me to take onboard your information, but what’s the reason why I should? No matter how worthy your cause or how persuasive your case – there is not enough time in the day for me to take on board every worthwhile or relevant scrap of information. So how do you make your own cause really stand out?

You have to know me, and think of me as a person – not as one of a group of MPs or candidates. It’s not all touchy feely by any means. Top statistics to support a cause are the absolute bees knees for me personally. The lobbyists who provide local statistics, local activities, local information etc – they are the ones who really get through.

Tick box campaigning begets tick box support. Make it real. Make it worthwhile. Make it genuine. I am nobody’s fodder!

I’ve had a bit of a bloggoliday – as you may have noticed from me largely posting speeches etc. – just felt like it. Is that a sin in bloggology? Probably! Anyway – am easing myself back into it.

Follow up on my Question Time appearance last week where Ian Hislop (now famously) gaffed. Ian said in answer to a discussion about what Sarah Palin had done for McCain’s campaign amounted to, something like she brings glamour to the political world where there is none. Now Harriet Harman and I may not be totally gorgeous – but hey – we ain’t that bad! The gaffe was very funny (possibly the best bit of QT) – I thought – and Ian said it had now gone all over You Tube etc. The BBC have even put it on their own site – which I thought was a bit mean!

Upshot of guilty conscience was invitation from Ian to a Private Eye lunch – which I went to yesterday. So – Ian – you are forgiven!

Talking of Sarah’s – what on earth was Mrs Brown doing? I cannot bear spouses being brought on stage at the end of speeches to make their spouses look human and present family values. Having them on at the beginning a la Obama style is even worse. I know it’s the done thing stateside – but I thought full marks to Nick Clegg for not dragging Miriam up on stage after his speech. Yes – come off – have a hug and a kiss – but not the American dream family thing. Maybe it is my bitter and twisted outlook on life – but all that stuff is just so old hat. I know – the focus groups probably say that the people love it! Down with focus groups then.