Battle Lines

The rich elite, and their aspirant hoping to join them politicians, continue to enjoy the products of the financial squeeze on all the rest of us. A squeeze that is due to tighten even further, as our government, elected to promote and protect our interests, draws up plans to combat the anticipate civil unrest! Officials are actively looking into the purchase, the deployment and how best to utilise water cannon  to be used against their own citizens. This would seem to be a perfectly okay, matter-of-fact and reasonable step to consider. Obviously if your citizens are rioting, you need to be able to control them, perfectly logical and commendable, maintaining law and order is surely a prime purpose of government.

Pause for one moment and ask why the government anticipate their own citizens might rise up and riot? The government policy of squeezing ever harder the lower income groups, slashing essential benefit, castigating all those that fail to endure their imposed restrictions as cheats, fraudster, idle and lazy, is central to this growing unrest. The government with head in the sand pursues the 'proven' past practices of avoiding recession by encouraging consumer spending, by taking out more loans which inflate house prices even further. Their only other action is to frenetically cut their own spending on the easy targets, why of course, all  those wilful people who refuse to get jobs and look to the State for support. Cut back on all those wasteful and unnecessary social support measures. If only those people got off their backsides and worked they would get along just fine. Mean while the government must encourage consumer spending, what better way then ensuring those successful people with money to spend are shielded from the economic savings being made else where, so they can get on and spend even more.

People will put up with hardship and endure intolerable conditions providing it is fair and equitable, we are all in it together, each taking their own share of the burden. Clearly this is not happening. You only have to lift you head a fraction to see all the evidence that we are in an ever growing unequal society. Never has the gap between those that have and those who cannot survive been so large. The government, instead of rushing to halt this growing gap, is intent on ensuring its increase, because, in their view, that is the only route to economic recovery. Hence a growing ground swell of intense dissatisfaction with an unequal society on one hand and the government taking steps to contain civil disorder on the other. Use Water Cannon on your own citizens to prove you are right. So Vote to support or Revolt to find a better solution.

Time to Share.

We look at it, we know it, we are almost bored with the thought but we carry on doing nothing. We humans have replicated to such a point that our capacity to plunder exceeds our limited Earth's capacity to provide. Been like that for a long time and what do we do? We sail on stripping the Earth of its irreplaceable assets as if there is no tomorrow. At least no tomorrow for our children now born, us, oh we will be all right, be enough to see us through! But we put so much time and energy into protecting our children and giving them best start out possible why bury our heads and ignore that that we know is going to happen? 

It is too big a problem? We are many, we are the cause and we can also be the solution. 'They' will sort it out. No, too set in a rut, 'they' can only carry on the way they always have, too much at stake for them to want to change. Ignore it and it will go away? It just gets to be an even bigger problem the longer we leave it. Scaremongering, just another false crisis made up for some political agenda? No. This is for real. There are so many fronts, each are telling the same story. Many, not just oil, essential minerals have a known finite reserve. Climate is going to change and our food sources are going to suffer. We strip the Earth of its lungs, the rain forest, we trash the soils with monoculture, we poison the ground with insecticides and fertilisers, we drive species to extinction just for our greed, it goes on and on. Wherever you are on the political spectrum, you cannot deny every single aspect. We have a problem.

On another tack we in the West have expectations of what we need to surround ourselves with to cope with life. The whole gamut, homes, furniture, food, transport, leisure activities, technology, we want it, we need it, we cannot survive without our access to it, to it all. China's millions are now waking up to these self same expectations. Their government pro-actively is out there now buying up rights to resources around the world, so their people can have what you take for granted. Not just China, but India, Africa and the S.America's are all looking and their appetite's to have also are awakening. The stuff they want does not come out of thin air, is not 're-cycled', it all comes out of the Earth, in one way or another. We have a problem.

We have to change tack. Put an end to this winner takes all attitude. The biggest, the most powerful take all they want. Be it hundred times, one thousand times, one million times more than the next person. It is their sovereign birth right to take it, to have it, protect it and stop you from getting a morsel. Whether we are thinking about individuals, companies, bank bosses, governments, continents, the same attitude applies. Those with the power take, take all they have a fancy to and those without, do with that much less.

We have to stop. We have to begin to care for that person next to us. They have as much right to what we have as we have to it. Nothing, nothing at all, gives us the right to have more, more than our neighbour. We have to share to make sure that what we enjoy is not disproportionate to what everyone else has. Only when we can be satisfied that others have had the chance to take their portion are we free to go back for more. This is the heart of being human. Whether we think about person to person or country to country, this is the true spirit of humanity. The takers have usurped us, now it is time for all of us to stand up and shame them for what they are. To claim back, on behalf us all, what is rightfully ours. To say no you are not entitled to that bonus, to use those share to your own advantage, to enact that legislation which is inequitable, your title deeds do not allow you sole occupancy, call it out as it is. Stand up, together, and shout out loud, "Fair for All or None at all".

The other way

Standby for the long haul. For time to time I have lost heart. Those with power and or privilege have such a firm grasp on the Establishment as to rebuff all pressure to change. People power as evidenced by 38Degrees or Tweets that go viral have shone a light. Not by plaintive 38Degree appeals to the better nature to those in power, who have shown by their sanctimonious platitudes, to lack compassion. To be devoid of all empathy. No people power as demonstrated by the overwhelming strength in numbers.

When all the Establishment has left is the preservation of the status quo, the power redistribution is over, job done. If the masses and just as important, the income generated by those masses refuse to accede to demands of those who have subsumed power to themselves, finally power reverts to where it always has been, with the will of all the people. Not just a select, self-protecting clique minority but all of the people. Clearly the Establishment is going to fight, fight dirty and there will be causalities along the way. The Establishment will use wontedly against it own citizens every vestige of power it has accreted over the years, indefinite detention without charge, body orifice search, seizure of assets, denial of service, search and exploitation of a digital material, injunctions, you name it and they have given themselves the uncontested power to do as they choose to any person that courts their displeasure. All in the name of the security of our State, the State that belongs to us, not 'them' that have arranged amongst their cohorts to be in charge.

Logistically if enough people come to together and agree on a course of action there is nothing that can be done to stop them. The mass will always win out against the minority no matter what weapons the minority choose to fight with. In the end, sheer overpowering numbers, overpower. There is no other outcome. Until now mobilising sufficient mass to overcome the forces set against them has been the restraint, (think the miners strike). Now we can have instant mass action or reaction, dynamically fluid, ever moving orchestrated by mass appeal, not along designated channels. IT savvy, entrepenual and able to respond in kind to Establishment attempts to throttle the communication pipes.

Not banner waving protests either that accede and are subservient to the powers assumed. No, but by mass refusals to comply, refusals to accede to domination. Emphatic rebuttal of this or that directive issued by those seeking to exert power and control. Masses that refused to be demonised as fraudster, cheats or liars and stand their ground and claim recognition for what they are, loyal, hardworking, honourable and worthy citizens. The will of these people do not consent to what you have granted to yourself. Not just a negative reaction either but a rejection along with an alternate action that the people will support and put their will behind. 

My hope is that the people will choose to move towards an egalitarian society. Where each looks out for the other and helps them to realise their potential for the great good of all. Where no one is left distressed or disadvantaged, each one helps the other. No elites, no protected tiers of ring fenced wealth, power and influence to buffer against the just claims of all those majorities without. My belief is in the common person. They would not tread down those below them just to get on the next ladder up. In the end, the people, just the people will decide. Now that really would be a welcome breath of fresh air.

Rip off GB style

I have this very nasty taste in my mouth, been with me for several weeks, try as I can to rinse it out, the bile keeps coming back. Something just is not right. The idea of people at the peak of their physical achievement contesting with others to see who is best is inspirational. So gladiatorial a match needs to be restricted to just once every five years. To host such a contest for the world should be an honour, a celebration of your Nations stature and achievements. So far all so good.

The cost of providing state of the art facilities, accommodating all the athletes with attendant followers, the media and not forgetting all the officials on their jollies is eye-wateringly huge. Just a pared down version let alone a full on lets swank and show the world what we can do version. The returns are proportionate, many immediate in increased traffic, visitors and all those logistics of making a large event happen. Some less tangible and down stream, the shadow of prestige, a heighten world wide awareness of the image put out there and the after effect of gung-ho we can that we can do anything.

Contrary to all the nay sayers, GB Ltd won the rights, has built on time to a budget that retains some allusion of credibility, without the hostage strikes of past decades, a worthy venue. Brilliant. National pride should be soaring. Instead I have this bile in my mouth. Quite rightly the government has chosen not to fund it all out of the public purse and has invited sponsors, large sponsors so inevitably commercial sponsors wanting to make a buck on the back of the biggest circus in town. No problem here either. For all its flaws the commercial world helps keep this world spinning and giving people what they think they need.

My problems stems from that having invited in sponsors it was not then necessary to roll over and grant them cart-blanc, a licience to riff off all and sundry as their prize for being a sponsor. No, their reward is supposed to just come from being intimately associated with a winning event. Instead we have restrictions, no liquid to be brought in, no food to be brought in, no alter logos to be worn, only the sponsors and their products are to be allowed once inside. I have good memories of families with a packed lunch for all going to a national event and having a great family time. Sorry but MacDonalds or coca-cola  are not my idea of healthy wholesome food fit to feed my family on. This is a celebration of commercial greed and a total disdain for freedom, liberties and an empowered citizenry.

It does not stop there. These games were supposed to be for all the people, to enjoy and to have lasting benefit from. The host cities were expected to make sacrifices for the greater good. Putting up with rushed through building sites, giving up transport access and accepting disruption to the norm chaos. Who would be so mean as to put at risk a great celebratory national event just for a few days of inconveniences. Surely everyone would squeeze up a little tighter to ensure the athletes, and the marshals, got to the event in time to perform at their best? Except of course all things are not equal. Who signed up to and agreed that the sponsors clients could also join in on the Olympic Expressway. Who thought it fair and equitable that there very best seats, up close to the favourite finishing lines should be set aside for sponsors clients? These best seats that were never offered to Joe Public. Joe Public never got even a look in. That Joe Public, who in their own small ways, made and are making, bigger contributions to the success of the games than the commercial sponsors who merely sliced off a piece of an already planned advertising budget, which was probably tax deductible in any event. A large cheque for sure, but minuscule and insignificant in corporate operating costs. What puffed up buffoon thought it necessary to seek legal sanctions against anyone with the temerity to refer to or incorporate a reference to the London 2012 Olympic Games, unless of course they were already on the sponsor list. This is not an individuals, a collection of individuals or even an London Games delivery committees, preserve. These games can only happen with the good will, support and acceptance of all the inconveniences of all of the people living in the host cities and of the Nation as a whole. It is a National event. We should all be joining in and sharing to all the tumultitude of excite and references to these, once in our life times, games. Not to be harangued by a jobsworth commissar for daring to make a reference to 'our' event.

Obviously these are not the result of actions of a sole individual or even a small clique, this is a tier apon tier of decision makers and decision ratifiers. What astounds me is that no one has stood back and said hey this is out of hand, this is commercialisation gone crazy. Clearly there was not amongst all those tiers a person with any sense of social propriety, with a sense of fairness and, rough, equity. The blanket assumption seems to be that milking the market for all it is worth and to hell with ethics is perfectly proper, even natural.

Let us hope and even pray that the London Games 2012 will be remembered for superb outstanding athletic achievements and not the crass, rampant, unchecked blatant squalid commercialisation at every single opportunity. A mood so far away from the soaring aspirations driving the Olympic movement (outside of GB Ltd). Not a reflection on GB Ltd I would wish our visitors to take away. I would rather hang on to the old fashioned, fair, generous, inclusive and welcoming GB Ltd that I used to know.

P.S. Just watched the opening ceremony. A complex story told with style, pace, humour, energy and panache. The flame cauldron will take some beating and the river of gold will last as a visual image. So almost embarrassed to be carping on but this grand opening still does not excuse or make acceptable the tacky squalid profit before people approach behind the organisation. Even heightens it, the GB Ltd image of the Opening was so right in so many ways whilst the elevating of sponsors over the people is just so wrong an image of GB Ltd.

Know Yourself

My experience has been that employment agencies look only to find the best fit box to stuff you in that they can then promote to likely employers. Despite all the profiling and other gimmicky that they might surround themselves with, their primary objective is to find that best fit box with the highest turnover and the best commission and then move on as fast as possible. They are certainly not in the business of looking at you as a blank piece of paper to assess the skills and experience you have to offer. All too complicated and time consuming. The best fit box is a fast but dirty way of summing you up into readily recognisable sectors, be it sales, education, health or whatever.

Likewise with your employer, their primary goal is to get you productive and income generating as fast and cleanly as possible. They too are looking for nice neat boxes to put you in, best fitting your past with their operational needs. No niceties, a people person, a problem solver, a task finisher, find and stuff you into the best fit box and get you working fast. Fair enough they need to profit out of your labour. The box you are put into of course only reflects the opportunities and experience's you have been allowed in the past. They are in no way reflective of your actual skill or mind set or where your aptitude really lies, if only you were given the chance. No one has the time or even perhaps the judgement set to gauge how good you might be, but only what you have previously demonstrated. Those boxes you find yourself in you get to carry forward throughout your working life. The chance to breakfree and start with a clean slate, or that white piece of paper, just never comes. You carry your past baggage forward with you, not your choice, not your wish, not your aspiration, it just accumulates and becomes the measure yardstick for all your futures.

You of course know yourself extremely well. Right? Wrong! Imagine yourself in a totally white room, floor, walls, ceiling, no windows no doors, just white sound, white scent and white surrounds.  Now who are you? Not your name, not your history, not your description. But who are you, that inner person? What we are, this inner person, is in response. In response to your surroundings, to the people you last had contact with, with the after tremors of the last physical experience. Your sub-concious and concious responses to these other stimuli are what drives your awareness of who you are. But it is more than this because we too bring baggage. We are not white pieces of paper with each fresh encounter. We bring the past along with us which shapes our reactions this time and moulds the future possibles. Worse still prior experiences limit our range of possible responses and the people we meet recognise and or have preconceptions of your reactions which limit the range of what you can or cannot do in response. We are limited by our past. Not immutable, subtly shifting and adapting, we evolve but within the constraints of what we were and did last time. Not fixed, you could wake up and start out with a clean white piece of paper, inventing a new personality for yourself. Except your physical baggage and all those people you associate with drag you back to what you were. Not you, the who you would like to be, within the constraints of your innate personality. The me that I can be and am, are but reflections of my past and peoples expectations of me.

It is a leap, a small leap, more of just a progression really. How the government views or has expectations of its citizens, directly influences how the citizen sees themselves, how they respond and react. Treated with disdain, suspicion, regarded as flawed, with limit capacity to think rationally or behave with a modicum of decency, they get citizens just like that but pushed to extremes. Regard your citizens with respect, expect the highest standards and they will rise to that confidence in them and often exceed expectations. The we, whether employer, individual or citizen just want recognition and encouragement to do better. Not much to ask is it.

From Cradle to Grave

I have been brought up with the expectation that the State would look after my every needs from cradle to the grave. Clearly this is not possible. Just as a belief in Father Christmas, this is a wholly unrealistic fantasy expectation. Yet it is a wide spread, fervently held expectation, almost as a moral right of citizenship that this shall be delivered to me, if not everyone else. No politician, if they hope to survive,  dares to stir the foundations of this expectation. But for all that it is a fantasy, incapable of implementation.

The human condition is complex, diverse and we are only now getting glimmers of how it might work and come together. One persons needs are of such a different magnitude to another's. Those needs so real and pressing at the time are not immutable. Satiated, the need merely shifts and moves on to new arenas. The time, place and even the company can have a huge impact of the perceived desperation of the need. For some, having an need is a prerequisite to life, without a need to share, they are vulnerable, isolated, cut-off. Their need is their way of relating and claiming attention and reassurance from those around them. Little wonder then that the State has not the least chance of satisfying the needs of its citizens.

All needs are very real to those that live with there lack of resolution. It is rather like deciding on degrees of killing, which is the kinder or more humane method? You might think that providing a wheelchair to a non-ambulant person is a clearly demonstrably more real and justifiable need than reading a newspaper to an elderly person. It all depends on circumstance and expectations. If the non-ambulant person is really missing companionship, the wheelchair may not provide the answer. Hearing the newspaper read may be the last desperate cling onto reality in an otherwise slide into dementia. You tell me which is the real need. Meeting needs is not about cost, it is not about the practical ease of provision, it is not about the physical against the emotional, it is all about a person perception of their need and how it might be provided for. Whether it is a wealthy housewife unable to cope with dusting, a single mum trapped in unsuitable accommodation all across the spectrum to a severely disadvantaged person that needs help just to breath. How can the state cater for all its citizens needs? It simply cannot.

It is the citizen, with their supporting network they have drawn around themselves, that has to address and resolve their own needs, within the pool accessible to them of financial, practical or emotional assistance. Harsh but that is the reality. No magic wands to sweep you out of your circumstance out in to some fantasyland where problems have been banished. We have to live with what we have got and have to learn to overcome the disadvantages of being in that place we find ourselves. Unfair, inequitable but that is life, we do not get to choose were we are born. Which is not to say the State has to be uncompassionate, it has a duty of care to look after those that fall for whatever reason.

Those that fall due to no fault of their own, they are worthy of every possible support and assistance to get back on their feet. Just short of that support becoming a crutch is the catch. As humans we are always going to get it wrong, taken in by a sucker story, to refusing a genuine tale of woe because it appeared self-induced. Despite all the wrong calls, the majority will be desperate needs rightful for state intervention. For all those other self-inflicted needs the state eventually has to provided a final safety net. We cannot let our citizens slump into degradation and despair. There has to be a safety net. It is just that the safety net does not have to equate to  an equivalence of self-sufficient suburban life with own front door and fully equipped and furnished home. The horrors of the workhouse are real and current memories, no going back to that. Short of the workhouse, a place of safety not full of all creature comforts, but a supportive environment to provide shelter and reassurance, for the individual, or members of or up to the whole family,  during that struggle to get back onto ones feet. That is the states remit. That is the extent of the state meeting the needs of its citizens. Well short of support from cradle to grave.

Baptism of Fire

Just a few months ago we started volunteering with a group helping to improve the local woodlands biodiversity and access. An opportunity to spend time in woodlands, in glorious locations, doing something useful and, as it turned out, amongst a varied group of nice guys. Vaguely knew that clearing scrub and creating opportunities for free foraging cattle opened up the floor flora to wider diversity encouraging a wider fauna to live and breed. Seemed all very simple and straight forward. I knew next to nothing about the whys, where's or hows of what we were doing. Trusted that there was a Master Planner somewhere who looked down and gave approval and that it would turn out right. From the odd discarded comments, picked up the odd gold nugget that revealed more than I knew of this my local habitat.

Then managed to get myself included in this outdoor conference, "the Woodland Edge" for all those wide ranging professionals whose work one way or another impacts on woodlands. So my mind-blowing journey began, opening me up to some of the wide range of issues that confront woodlands, their management, their financing and their future. You will have gathered from my previous post, Caged by Language, that I was uncomfortably thrown into a very touchie feelie world were emotional content was probably more important to the participants than identify and isolating problems so that tentative solutions could be aired. Maybe I got it wrong but that was my impression. But of course it was only the start of my journey. Well everyone has to be on a journey nowadays. I went with the expectation of coming away with some comprehension of the dynamics of woodlands. Why on earth would anyone choose to invest in planting trees, leaving them for the next couple of generations to cut down and make some money out of. Then there was the issue of conservation and special designated areas where trees just could not be cut down to produce income, willynilly. How did they fit into it all. As a backstory perhaps, who was really profiteering from all this free volunteer labour, the community or some other behind the scene's organisation whose motives I may not necessarily endorse.   

During the conference a great many issues were aired that explored degrees of these or similar issues. May be the professionals, (the salaried experts in their particular field) were well versed and brought an in depth understanding. It was not clear to me at all, as the discussions ranged across from forests, as I like to think of them, being mono-cultured planted stock, with a planned life and clear-felled for profit all the way across to the opposite side. A SSSI woodland where every decision to keep, enhance or remove has to be fully argued and justified in some balancing act between an existing living ecosystem and an aspiration to get back to some fixed in time aspirational ecosystem. With a whole range of woodlands falling between these extremes displaying more or less of one characteristics or another. So our professionals discussions were able to range across these woodland distinctions without feeling the need to clarify which aspect of woodland mix they had in mind. But then the conference was more about connecting with emotions than with the dross of practical distinctions.

After the conference I tired to share as feedback the confusion I took away with me but felt like a ignorant pariah pissing on the wonderful emotive outpourings. No really the conference mood was invigorating and uplifting it just did not give me answers that was looking for. Then I turn to "ECOS - a review of conservation" it seems as if it is an academic journal publishing researched papers. Then another world again opens up to conservation at a tipping point with government pushing in one direction. Localism with central direction of volunteer effort. In the opposite direction, that of communities, their 'ownership' of landscape feature which are significant in their daily lives and how their energies can be co-opted to help them to see and achieve their aspirations for their landscape. Irrespective of the extended technicalities of land ownership. At the heart of all these issues, is of course the big question. As a citizen of UKplc who actually owns and controls the land we stand on and live our lives within. When a special historic woodland is designated as something special, does it still 'belong' to the Crown Estates who hold the land deeds, the Forest Commission who hold a lease to manage and operate it within the constraints set by 'Government' who have prescribed what can or cannot happen, presumably for the benefit of all us citizens, so we can carry on enjoying and experiencing this designated unique space and habitat. There is a conundrum. Add to that mix profit and tax benefits for anyone who can show title to a piece of land and you have a potent heady brew with deep seated vested interests.. No wonder our professionals are baffled and confused as to who they serve and what the end objective is. There is no way the complexities of the issues they face can be wrapped up into simple 30 second sound bites capable of being understood by the legislators would make the changes. Equally how do we, as citizens of UKplc, relate, respond and make vocal our concerns for the environment we live in, care about and want to leave in good health for future generations? Have a look at Right to Plunder where I sketch out my thoughts on a self-financing way forward.

Who needs Education?

The question is of course rhetorical, we all know we need education. The debate that has continued to rage over the past four hundred years is what form this education should take. Should it be practical, about life skills, or academic, exploring the furthest reaches of human endeavour.

For me the issue is simple. Industry is best placed to know what it wants and needs from the workforce and pay for its training. It is for them to take the raw talent and turn them into the skilled operative best suited to their particular industry. It is not for government to best guess their ever changing needs and skills expectations. We do need a new take on the old apprenticeship model however. It needs to be a lot more inclusive and wider ranging. For example the building industry now needs operatives that have a background understanding of working with concrete, steelwork, masonry and carpentry and all their associated specialist tools and equipment before specialising in their chosen trade. Likewise a machinist needs to develop the hand-eye coordination skills working with a range of materials from wood, plastics to specialist metals, at nanoscale through to massive and all the attendant specialist machine operations before further training in their chosen work area. That is for industry to fund and focus on.

Aside of that the Nation needs to develop its raw talent intellectually to the fullest extent possible, utilising all the available technology to encourage each young citizen to reach for their limits.

What we all have to face up to is the logarithmic expansion of the knowledge we have to encompass inorder to utilise our everyday skills. In any particular subject as the frontier of knowledge pushes ever forward, so the bandwidth of knowledge that has to be covered also increases. To make sense of a small specific item entails an absorption of a huge background of related information together with all its attendant sideways interrelated matter, necessary to make sense of, to fully understand and be able to manipulate the subject at hand. Subjects have not for some time been discrete packets that stand alone in isolation. Not for a long time is it sufficient to just learn by rote the times tables or the spelling-bee lists of words, life's complexities have broadened and spread out. We need to educate all of our citizens to the limits that they can reach for. That means galvanising and exciting our students to push on further and faster, grabbing every technological aid available. Yes there will be loss of precision at the small scale, faltering mental sums, grammatical or spelling errors. Better by far to reach forward knowing that life's harsh expediency will ensure these small scale loss of accuracy can and will be picked up later. The overriding challenge is to excite them to reach forward as only then are impossible targets suddenly attainable. That is what we so desperately need as a Nation . Every single student should be encouraged to reach for that limit, a university degree should be everyone's free birth right and expectation. For these citizens are our torch-bearers for all our futures and hopes. This has to be our single most important and vital investment into our Nation's future, without limitations of financial resource or fear of future debt or hardship. Without a proven provenience into a solid dependable life career. We simply need skilled citizens to cope with the incomprehensible complexities lurching just around the corner. The Nation and its citizens will have to fast on their feet and quick in mind to survive all of tomorrows great uncertainties. Invest upto the hilt in our stock, our citizens, now, as we just don't know what is coming next.

No better time than right now to redefine our education qualifications and notch them up a gear, expect more of everyone. I see more of an AO exam leading to a degree course similar in structure to a six-form college, acquiring the fundamentals, slowly focusing on the particular area of interest, but broad based, covering all the inter-related skills necessary to be an adroit citizen. Only then moving to a redefined University course with a much higher expectation in both input skills and output, say more of an upgraded Master, applying and extending a initial overview of a subject into a narrowly focused specialisation. These graduates would then leave with a degree of competence at the leading edge of their chosen subject. Our Nation will the beneficiary or not as these citizens use their new-found enthusiasm with perhaps some entrepreneurial flair thrown in to exploit and incidentally create wealth with their new found knowledge and skills. No guarantees of pay back to the Nation, but with such an uncertain future ahead and no clear path to follow this is our best chance of survival. One we must grasp it confidently and pool all our financial resources into it.