March 2009 Archives

Insurance: the very word is indicative of just how dull the subject is. Insurance companies don't make it any better by making the worst TV ads possible. If they're not denigrating the status of one of my rock idols (whilst neglecting to add that they don't insure musicians) then they're bleating on about how much cheaper they are than all the rest.

It's this point which doesn't really stack up. They can't all be cheaper than each other and quoting random sums of money that they could save you (without indicating all the possible clauses you have to satisfy in order to save) is merely irritating - if not actually infuriating when you come to challenge them.

I had to renew my car insurance last wk, an annual obligatory chore which sees me routinely trying some screenscrapers and phoning a few other companies who promise more than they can deliver. Of course it'd be easiest just to accept the renewal notices that your existing insurer sends through, unfortunately they're never the cheapest option.

This point alone really winds me up. I had always learned, and believe, that to keep a customer is cheaper and more effective than having to acquire a new one. Insurance companies clearly don't follow this strategy; indeed most of them offer specific deals that are only open to new clients - what better way to annoy your existing customers?!

Then you get down to the claims themselves. I can be specific and tell you that Tesco wanted £288 from me to renew, they were the cheapest offer I could find in March 08 but not anymore. I eventually went with esure (despite the very annoying Michael Winner ads) for £233. In a recession or any other time, £55 or 19% is a significant difference I think.

It's readily-accepted, with a few exceptions, that footballers are not the brightest. Indeed they should probably only express themselves on the pitch or using their wallets in the shops to prop up the dwindling economy.

Unfortunately we live in a celebrity-obsessed world and many people hang off every comment that their idols expel. On that basis maybe it was less than diplomatic for Wayne Rooney to point out that he 'hates' Liverpool.

On the flipside though, why shouldn't he? Aside from the fact that it conflicts with my fear that players shouldn't talk too confidently about a match before it takes place - as it may only inflame and inspire your opponents (something that may be true of this instance), football is built on rivalry; it's a competitive sport and sometimes the only thing better than your team doing well is your rivals suffering in some manner.

As a West Brom fan I accept that Wolves are gloating over our troubles this season - as I hope and pray we are able to do to them next year when they have an even worse premiership season than us.

I prefer to deflect their taunts by not recognising them as our worthy rivals. When I first became an Albion fan (many years ago in my childhood) Wolves were completely off the radar, subsequently my fiercest rivalry has always been with Villa. I think most Albion fans only patronise the Wolves hatred because we've dropped a million miles from that Aston team in the past two decades.

It is commonplace for football fans to despise their nearest geographical (and sometimes competitive) rivals. Thus Arsenal hate Tottenham, but also Chelsea for usurping them. Man Utd hate City, but probably hate Liverpool more. It goes with the territory.

Passing a Wembley scrap yard on a train this morning I was reminded of a regular run I used to undertake along the Birmingham canal side. Leaving BRMB in Brindleyplace I would head left along the towpaths and pass under the Dudley Road by City Hospital and towards Smethwick before having to turn and come back.

Within 20 minutes it was possible to witness the past, present and future of the City and its environs. I would leave the posh bars, cafés and apartments and pass empty industrial factory shells, motor wrecking yards and turn around by still existing foundries, motor mechanics and boatyards.

At times the acrid stench of the scrap yards would leave me wondering whether I was doing more damage to my lungs than good, but overall the jog provided both an escape from the stress of office work and a glimpse into a not-so-distant past - how the wealth of a City was built and how it is currently being spent.

I was always slightly bewildered by the sheer quantity of new-build apartments that sprung up around what might once have been called the 'arse-end' of Birmingham. I can see the benefits of living close to a vibrant, re-vitalised city but probably not at the prices originally quoted. It always seemed to me that developers were using the field of dreams philosophy - if we build them, they will sell.

For a few years on this route, heading either left or right from the sea life centre sent me alternately into Smethwick or towards Selly Oak, past the new-builds and into decay. It seemed that the population were moving away from the industrial bases to the financial heart of the city, a pattern being repeated all around the Country.

It probably won't have escaped your notice that U2 have released a new album this week. They've hardly been keeping a low profile, popping up in the media almost as frequently as a DFS sale advert. The surprising news is that the album itself isn't bad, perhaps formulaic in places but I guess that if you're buying a U2 album you want to hear something that sounds like U2. They didn't get where they are today by trying to be something that they're not.

I suppose it's only really a surprise because the initial omens weren't good, they experimented with a couple of different producers before going back to tried and tested and the release date was delayed a couple of times - normally an indicator of commercial difficulties and songwriters-block. Then there was that first single. In retrospect 'Get On Your Boots' isn't that bad, it just isn't great being something of a lazy, quasi-funky re-tread of 'Vertigo', a groove in search of a song. There's also the fact that they're working it so hard, they haven't been this active in the promotional market for many years - usually a sign that we have to have our arm twisted to buy it.

Unfortunately the latter point is probably true. As less and less people go out and buy physical musical product (in CD form) these days, bands from the CD era have to work harder to get us to spend money. Given their status as probably the leading act of that generation - spawned in the 80's and gravitating to global stardom over two decades - U2 are the flag-bearers for the recorded music industry. If they don't sell, what will?