Easy answer: when Starbucks or Costa Coffee are making it…

What’s a flat white you ask? I discovered it around 18 months ago, but it’s an Australian classic in the coffee world. The perfect bridge between a double espresso macchiato and a really strong latte, which, done well is the perfect coffee for someone who wants a strong coffee kick and a bit, but not too much, milk on the top. The milk is always full fat, and very silky. The coffee base is usually three shots of “ristretto”, the first bit of espresso that comes out of the machine.

The two big coffee chains I mentioned have recently jumped on a bandwagon that in the UK at least started in coffee houses in Soho and Bloomsbury. Stores such as Monmouth, Flat White, Fernandez & Wells and Lantana have been serving the drink for a few years, and it’s become popular with the crowd of coffee connoisseurs who frequent this rash of independent, antipodean-inspired coffee stores in central London. I’m not sure of the mass appeal of the drink in the UK, because it is quite strong, but it’s certainly an improvement on the popular “latte” or jug of milk with a hint of coffee which people in this country seem to love so much.

Starbucks was first, and it was initially only available in the fancy new concept store just off Regents Street. When I saw the ad I was intrigued and I tried it straight away. Verdict? Starbucks’ bitter coffee isn’t the right base, and the milk they use is semi-skimmed I believe. The new cup they introduced is nice, and the barista tried to achieve the typical flat white pattern on top, but it wasn’t a flat white. It was bitter.

When I landed at Heathrow last Saturday from my trip to Lebanon, I noticed that Costa was making quite a fuss about its version of the flat white. I tried it. Apparently the company has spent upwards of £1million to train staff on how to make this new drink perfectly. What a waste of money! The poor barista, who I truly felt sorry for, couldn’t achieve the pattern which Costa had captured so perfectly in the poster for the new drink. He tried, but explained to me that the one in the poster was the “Picasso version”. The drink itself wasn’t too bad – the coffee an improvement on Starbucks, but there was too much milk as the cup was too big.

If these two coffee monsters are betting that their versions of the flat white are going to make up for falling revenues, I think they’ve bet on the wrong horse. Well actually, maybe the masses will take up the drink and enjoy it. But for a stuck-up, snob of a coffee purist like me, these two versions of a coffee favourite don’t cut the mustard.

If you want to experience the true flat white, get in touch and I’ll take you to Fernandez & Wells!

Two conversations tonight had me thinking about what makes a good (or bad) manager, and more widely about what work means to our lives. Firstly I was speaking with an old colleague, who is now a good friend about work-life balance. We concluded that it’s okay to work all the hours God sends if the job you do is something you are passionate about and interested in. If you wake up each day excited to go to work, then you probably wouldn’t mind working long into the evening on that same job, although perhaps not every night.

I believe that we should all do, or at least be working towards, a job that makes us feel this way. I think that’s how you find happiness in life. Even if you don’t earn as much as you perhaps could in a job which makes you unhappy!

The other conversation took place late at night in a central London office of one of my close friends. I can’t name this friend for reasons of anonymity. You see, I think this person has a bad manager. What kind of company keeps a potentially vulnerable person in an office, alone, late at night when a client of the opposite sex will be in the building late into the night? Really I think it’s irresponsible. In situations like this, there should at least be another member of staff around, even if it’s just to make sure that if any problems arise they can be dealt with. So I decided to keep this friend company, and thus missed my TV programme (iPlayer here we come)!

What makes a good manager? Any manager will surely be more successful in his role if he spends time making the people he manages feel at ease. Feel at ease enough to mention when there are problems, not to feel afraid of rapprochement for speaking out – where appropriate of course. And they should spend a portion of their time thinking openly and honestly about how they can be better in their jobs. Making people work bank holidays, even when there is no real work that needs doing – effectively making their staff show that they’re committed despite the fact that there’s no work, will kill the morale of their staff quickly. As will keeping your staff late into the night without urgent need to do so.

Don’t get me wrong, I believe in hard work. I’m completely happy to work long, long hours, weekends and bank holidays if necessary to get a project finished. I believe in delivering on promises and doing the best quality work that I can. But to get the best out of our staff, managers should make an effort to make their employees feel valued.

As a serial renter in London, I’m acutely aware of some of the problems facing people who either through choice or not having yet had an opportunity to buy, rent properties in the private sector in Britain. In fact I’m not just a serial renter myself; I’ve never lived in a property which was owned, either by myself or my family. I grew up in rented property. I have no intellectual problem with renting, and although I fully understand why people want to purchase their own homes, I don’t see anything wrong with renting as a long-term solution to an individual’s or family’s housing needs. In fact in many countries, renting isn’t looked down on as it perhaps is here.

There are several people I know who are also experienced in the ins and outs of renting over a long period in the UK. Not just well-earning professionals, some with families who want to work part-time and also unemployed people (who still in my opinion deserve a nice, safe home). In fact it’s in these kind of groups where we see the real problems in the private sector rental market. If you’re a young couple with no children, both earning a respectable salary each, you can most likely afford to pay a sizeable rent, plus what is often ten weeks rent up-front (covering a six week deposit, plus the first month’s rent). If, however, you have say two children and only one of you works, firstly your rent will be higher as you need at least a second bedroom, but your income will be significantly lower because there’s only one bread-winner. If you have no income coming into the family whatsoever, then you’re in an even worse position.

Cost aside, another big issue is the length of rental leases, particularly in big cities. Neighbourhoods thrive on having people and families live there, and stay there over a long period, better still with different generations and socio-economic backgrounds living alongside each other. But it’s hard to facilitate communities like this if the renters, which will make up a large portion of property-dwellers in any area, have to pack up and move after just a year in a property. People are often expelled for no particular reason, other than the fact that the landlord wants to increase the rent or divide a property into sub-lets, or just find a tenant with a different background. I think this is unique to the UK, and acute in London. I once rented a property in Porto, Portugal for a year, and the tenure’s starting term was five years (we later had to move back to Britain, and we negotiated an exit with the landlord) – which is the norm in Portugal, and other countries where renting is more socially acceptable.

We should reform the private housing system to encourage landlords to rent their properties out for longer periods. We’ve done a lot already, but there’s more to do. And private rentals can pick up a lot of the built-up demand that exists for social housing in big cities like London. This government has reformed the housing benefit system, and has introduced what is in my mind a very effective tool in the Local Housing Allowance, which is accurately tapered to the real-time rental values of properties down to the specific post code. It used to be the case that housing benefit claimants would receive a nominal fee, more often than not below the actual value of the rent. Whenever you look at property rental ads, it’s not long before you see the ignorant and technically incorrect “no DSS” (or no department for social security, which no longer exists, but alludes to housing benefit claimants). If we’ve reformed the system so claimants are guaranteed that they will receive a certain amount before they move into a property, we should now make it illegal for landlords to refuse a letting on the basis of the tenant’s income or status with regards to benefits. There are plenty of trustworthy tenants out there who for whatever reason have come into misfortune and need to claim housing benefit for a period; it’s in the interest of private landlords to rent to tenants who effectively have state-backed rent income. We should also end the practice which allows landlords to discriminate against families with children – there’s no intellectual, ethic or logical reason for it, and it’s an unfair discrimination.

Surely we should give the option of being able to sustainably rent a private sector property to those people who would benefit from social housing? Those people and families shouldn’t be forced to live on housing estates, but should have the choice. In fact, renting on the private sector comes with a level of independence that some people might find attractive, we just need to help those people who can’t get into the system themselves.

There is a problem with the deposit system in this country. In Switzerland, a tenant has the option to buy a private insurance policy instead of providing a huge sum of money at the start of a contract. Now that we’ve forced landlords to put deposit money in safe, untouchable places, and have thus taken away the financial incentive that some corrupt landlords once had to steal deposits or make false claims against them, why not go further and allow tenants to use insurance rather than deposits to give the landlord security? The landlord will still be protected, and will just have to make a claim against a policy should a tenant damage a property or elope. This should be the prerogative of the tenant, not the landlord. This will no doubt help thousands of struggling families across the United Kingdom who are placed in B&Bs for months and sometimes years, because they can’t afford to find their own property on the rental market.

One last point, about housing benefit. Let’s make it 100% means tested. It makes little sense in many parts of the country, that families who are renting (both private and social housing) are forced to stay in unemployment or menial employment just so they can continue to receive the housing benefit to cover their rent. The way the “taper” system works means that if your income goes over a certain level (I think it’s around £17,000 but I may be wrong on that), the benefits received stop completely. So it can make more sense for people to work a menial job than to pursue their professional development to the full, out of fear that they won’t be able to pay their rent. There may be areas where even if you earn say £25,000, you cannot pay the full rent, and so therefore should still receive some help toward it.

We spend a lot of time thinking about policies which encourage people to buy property. That’s fine, and mass property ownership is certainly a way to make a society prosperous, but there are those who don’t want to buy or cannot. Let’s make the system easier for them. If we do, everybody benefits, not just the tenants. The housing market will be more secure, there will be less empty properties, city communities will be more diverse and fewer families and individuals will be homeless.