jonathan.rawle.org

The latest figure for the average cost of a wedding stands at a staggering £17,000. Now, it isn’t often I can say I agree with what the Church of England has to say on an issue, but the Church has produced a booklet suggesting that people should spend less on their big day, and on this aspect at least, I’m right behind them.

The Church is concerned that too much emphasis is being placed on the wedding ceremony, and not on the marriage itself, and that the true meaning is being lost in a “spiralling culture of expenditure”. That’s quite a good point, and while people might say they are spending a lot because their wedding day is important to them, it simply boils down to the usual mentality that it’s necessary to spend a lot of money to have a good time.

If losing the true meaning is of no concern, let’s think instead about what better use the money could be put to. How about paying off both the bride’s and the groom’s student debts – or if they have already done that, putting the money towards their children’s? Or maybe, in an age when it’s increasingly difficult to get onto the property ladder, the money could go towards a house? Or perhaps, instead of blowing the lot on a single day, it could pay for summer holidays for most of the remainder of the couple’s working life. And if none of those ideas appeal, I’m sure there are plenty of charitable organisations that could do with a £17,000 or two.

Now, it’s widely known that most companies are only too quick to overcharge for a product or service if they know it’s for a wedding. Ultimately, however, the spending decisions are down to those organising the wedding: i.e. the couple getting married. How many of the things are necessary, and how many are chosen simply because it’s what other people do? How many things really need to cost so much, and how many could be obtained at a lower price, or substituted for something less extravagant?

Where does all the money go? The fees payable to a church, if it’s to be the venue, might be only £200 or so; marrying at a registry office costs in the region of £100 (now there I can see a way of saving money already that the C of E would probably not be in agreement with, although, to be fair, theirs is only a small proportion of the total cost). So that’s not where the money goes. In fact, most of the money goes to people who have purely commercial interests in the ceremony.

If it’s necessary to spend so much money for a “traditional” wedding, why is it that in decades past, before we entered the age of super-consumerism, a traditional wedding cost a fraction of what it does now in real terms?

I can imagine people are thinking, “It’s worth spending that money to make the wedding romantic.” But since when did romance require money? Surely being together with a few special friends and family members is all that is needed, which should cost very little at all? And a great, atmospheric venue, whether chosen for spiritual or architectural reasons, need not break the bank either. Strip away the expensive kitsch, and the occasion would be far more romantic.

I’ve never seen the figures published, but I’m sure that if the cost of the wedding was plotted against the duration of the marriage, the (mathematical) relationship would not be directly proportional. But never mind the effect of spending on the marriage. How can anyone enjoy the wedding day itself, knowing all the time that it has cost them such a lot of money?

Today, we hear that only two groups have submitted bids to become the next operators of the UK’s National Lottery: the incumbent, Camelot; and Indian lottery operator Sugal & Damani.

The new entrant promises to raise a greater amount money for good causes with a more efficient operation than Camelot. Of course, we don’t know much about other aspects of their bid. But if everything else were roughly equal, surely a lottery that raises more for charity would be preferable? This is not a new idea. In the previous races to become the lottery operator, the People’s Lottery, Richard Branson’s proposed not-for-profit organisation, made a strong showing, but always lost out to Camelot.

This is the third time the licence has been up for grabs since the lottery’s inception in 1995. In 2000–01, the competition descended into farce when the National Lottery Commission effectively awarded the licence to the People’s Lottery, only to have the decision overturned in the High Court by Camelot, who went on to have their licence extended instead. This was despite the new Labour government having promised in their manifesto that the lottery would be run by a non-profit organisation.

Sadly, even Richard Branson sees little point in trying a third time. As Simon Burridge, who ran the People’s Lottery’s bid last time around, puts it:

The playing field’s so uneven it’s become pointless, putting in all that time and effort and money. I think the process has lost credibility. Richard’s always up for a fight, so it really has to be pretty bleak.

With each licence renewal, it seems Camelot gain an ever increasing advantage over any possible competitors, making it impossible for anyone else to catch up with them and become a serious rival. The bidding process makes it far easier for the incumbent to continue. The lottery operator has a monopoly, and while not quite a licence to print money, it’s the next best thing. What could be done? Perhaps the government could insist the lottery was non-profit-making. But haven’t we heard that idea somewhere before?

I wish the new Indian bidders well, but I’m afraid I know who my money would be on for winning the new lottery licence. It’s said that the lottery produces winners every week, and it seems that they will continue to be Camelot’s shareholders.

Today, the government has announced that 2500 post offices are to close. It’s hardly surprising (and not just because the scale of the closures was leaked, and because it’s been under discussion for a long time). People now prefer to have their pension or benefits paid into their bank account. They pay utility bills or buy their car tax disc onlne.

However, one thing that does need to be done at the post office is sending parcels, or other items of heavy post, or international mail. Also, some people would still prefer to pay bills at the post office, and in rural areas with no banks, the cash withdrawal facility is welcome. But there is one snag: post offices are only open during the daytime, during office hours. Often they will be open 9am to 5pm on weekdays, and only to noon on Saturday. Many even close at lunchtime!

The fact is, most people are at work during the times post offices are open, so they are unable to use the services on offer even if they wanted to. They might just call in occasionally on Saturday morning if they need to post a parcel, but they certainly aren’t going to be regular customers. Why can’t post offices stay open until later in the evening and at the weekend? This would allow many new customers to use the services there. Would sub-postmasters complain? If the office opened until 7:30pm two nights a week, it could open later two mornings a week, or they could have two afternoons off. Many post offices are located in convenience stores that stay open late anyway, but the post office counter still shuts at 5pm.

A similar thing happened with public libraries. The numbers using them started to drop off, but they began to diversify and offer a range of new services; they also started to have late-opening nights. If, following the closures, the remaining 11,800 post offices are to survive, I’d suggest they try opening for hours that a larger proportion of the public would find convenient.

I wanted to write something about the collapse of the Farepak Christmas savings scheme, which left thousands of mainly low-income households without extra money to spend at Christmas.

However, I came across an excellent article in the Sunday Times by Merryn Somerset Webb, the editor of Money Week, which says most of the things I wanted to say about such schemes. So please read Merryn on Money: Christmas is cancelled first.

As I had suspected, these schemes are not good value for money. The goods savers receive can be worth far less than the money they put in, so the whole scheme is a rip-off, or as Merryn puts it, “Little more than legalised theft”.

The chairman of a rival Christmas savings company, Peter Johnson, claims in an interview that the interest earned on a £10 per week investment would be £1.50 a year. What sort of account do you put your savings into, Mr Johnson? To receive such a low return, the interest rate would have to be about 0.5%. In fact, from a simple online interest calculator, we can see that at the current Bank of England base rate of 5%, the interest earned would be £11 a year, giving the savers more than a week’s extra money – welcome if they are so badly off. And as for tax, are these people on supposedly low incomes really using their £3000 per year tax-free ISA allowances? Of course, the worst thing is that, as the goods received by Farepak investors are lower in value than the money paid out, the interest rate is effectively negative. How many people would use a high street bank advertising that on its glossy posters?

Not only are banks and building societies better value for money, they are also much lower-risk. There’s something unusual: a lower-risk investment with better returns! If money is invested with National Savings & Investments (NS&I), it’s 100% secure. With commercial banks, if they collapsed, investors would still recover the first £2000 of their savings (and 90% of any remainder) under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.

So why do people still use such schemes if they are such bad value for money? I know people are forced into using doorstep loan sharks because reputable lenders will not touch people on low incomes. However, the same doesn’t apply when it comes to savings. I’m sure the banks and building societies would welcome an extra £40 million invested in their accounts. There seem to be a number of reasons including: lack of education, particularly when it comes to financial matters; lack of self-discipline – as Mr Johnson points out, people can’t get at their money early, so can’t be tempted to withdraw it; and social factors – people’s parents used to use Farepak, or the local collector is their neighbour.

So what can be done? People need to be better educated about financial matters. Perhaps financial advice sessions could be compulsory under certain circumstances. Now let me make it clear, if people are on a low income because their job is low-paid, they’ve earned their money and are entitled to do what they want with it. However, if someone is receiving state benefits, why should the “legalised thieves” be able to take tax-payers’ money?

As for the question of self-discipline, I’m sure there are already regular saver accounts where money can’t be accessed for a certain period. NS&I could help improve the situation by introducing a specific Christmas Saver account, which might also help to convince people who use savings schemes because it’s “what they have always done”.

Finally, the government could tightly regulate, or preferably ban the likes of Farepak altogether. Sometimes the only way to protect people who know no better is for the government to remove the bad choice so that they can no longer take it. It doesn’t remove people’s freedom to choose as there are still plenty of ways to save money. It would simply ensure no form of theft was legal.

As for Mr Johnson, his company might seem generous, donating £1 million to the “Farepak fund”, but let’s face it, he needs to do everything he can to restore confidence in Christmas schemes, or else his company is going to have a hard time next year. Hopefully the Farepak episode will wake people up to all the things that are wrong with such schemes, and prompt them to move into the 21st century and choose a more modern way of saving for Christmas.

On Thursday morning’s news, it emerged that protesters from Greenpeace had targeted Didcot power station in an attempt to shut down the coal-fired plant. Some of them chained themselves to a conveyor belt carrying coal into the station, while others headed for the top of the 198-metre high chimney. By abseiling from the top of the chimney, the protesters were able to paint the message “Blair’s legacy” down the side, as can seen in the image.

As it happened, Tony Blair was in the area that day to visit the Diamond synchrotron. On Greenpeace’s website it said he was in the area “coincidentally”. But you do have to wonder if they had inside information.

Greenpeace claim that Didcot power station is the second most polluting in the UK, and that two thirds of the energy is wasted as heat from the cooling towers. Their idea of localised generation where homes can be heated using the excess two thirds is reasonable, but this wasn’t really emphasised in any of the reports in the media – the nature of the protest overshadowed the most important part of their message. And as the Prime Minister said on the special local news programme that evening, he couldn’t just shut down the coal-firied power stations overnight, and any savings in CO₂ emissions would soon be wiped out by growth in the developing world. Those countries need to be brought on board if we are to fight climate change, and they aren’t going to stop building polluting power stations just because we’ve closed ours.

The following day, the power station’s owners, npower, were granted a High Court injunction, ordering Greenpeace to leave. The protesters were swiftly arrested on suspicion of aggravated trespass and criminal damage, although thanks to health and safety rules, it seems unlikely their punishment will be to clean up their graffiti.

• Greenpeace’s photos from the top of the chimney: 1 2
• Tony Blair responding to Greenpeace on Central News