Jamie Oliver writing about his new series the Dream School and the pupils he wants to create opportunities for, referred to a willingness to graft. We all have to sell what we have. Some are lucky, born rich and all they have to do is sell their connection to a past wealth. Some are born intellectually endowed and they have a fertile mind to sell. Their challenge being to settle on which academic field best utilises their particular brain capabilities, juggling mathematical formula, dissecting or crafting tight sentences or creatively investigating and deducing from scant evidence. Others are just born with a well endowed body and have no qualms in selling that for as long as it lasts. We are all out to offer a unique selling point that makes our offer stand out from the crowd, to be irresistible to the employing, hiring, income generating select few.
Some have the gift of creativity to offer but the mass of us are short on such gifts. Perhaps we have a nurturing caring nature and can find a niche there. What Jamie said made sense. The most of us have no particular skill or gift but what we do have and can offer is the willingness to graft. To put in the hours of effort and determination, to learn from the tasks presented and thus makes ourselves indispensable and desirable to be employed. It takes all sorts to make this world go round, we cannot not all be at the top. The grinding mass of everyday work is just as, or as equally important, to keeping the wheels turning as some flash of inspiration.
We all need each other and are dependant on each other, so we all can succeed.
Saturday, 26 February 2011
Friday, 18 February 2011
Unemployed
Am I the only one to remember that the Government decided not to count the unemployed some ten years or more back. They changed the rules and would only count the compliant unemployed. To be compliant you had to surrender yourself to their programme of harassment and cohesion, to prove within their narrowly focused rules, that you really were trying to look for work. For anyone dependant on the Government through Benefit Allowances or anyone tied into a Insurance scheme where signing on was obligatory, there was no option but to submit to the ritualised weekly humiliation. An uncounted number of people are unemployed but simply no longer counted by the government of the day. We simply do not know or try to find out. They are not counted.
What is wrong with this Government initiative, just making sure, the scroungers off the State, were making some effort to get a job? So the sanctimonious headline is crystal clear Government, good, scroungers, bad, find work, good, fail to find employment, bad. If only real life was as simple and easily separated into black and white issues! Everyone's expectation is to earn a decent living and contribute, to the fullest extent of their capabilities, to the welfare of their family, taking the fullest advantage of the rich rewards of this consumer driven society we are part of. So where does it all go wrong?
The downward spiral of any recessions, ultimately government manipulated or a consequences of government decisions, leaves a trail of redundant people. People in work with aspirations, suddenly without work or hope. Job opportunities evaporated. Looking globally across the nation and all work sectors there is still work to be had. The government can make its point by stating the number of unfilled job vacancies. Vacancies, but not necessarily available to the unemployed in specific locations, commitments and their work expectations.
There are a huge number of social concerns riding on the back of a job. In a fair and equitable society it just is not any job at any wage. Employers do take advantage of pressure on people to get a job, offering the least wage conditions and security they can get away with. Is it right that government should collude with the worst employers and force the unemployed to take a job no matter what conditions? Clearly not. Some employers consider the labour they take on simply as a means to squeeze as much profit out of these labour units as they can. Cutting vegetable outdoors in the fields in freezing conditions all weather is not a career option or even a work option of choice. It is work and has to be done. What does it say of our society when the unemployed are made to take on such work, because it is the only work available? Take meat packing factories, long shifts in chilled environments, monotonous work with no scope for skill. It has to be done. What about the recycling vans, out all weathers picking up the street edge boxes and selectively throwing the contents into the van. Nothing there to aspire you to a career or get satisfaction from a job well done. But it has to be done.
So there is the first issue. Employer have got to change and not regard their captive labour force simply as a unit to be exploited for their personal maximum benefit. They have to come to regard their workforce as their biggest longterm investment and find ways to incentivize them, win loyalty and proactively seek their employees contribution to improve the profit margins. The workforce is not the problem, it actually is the source of solutions, if only employers cast off the old feudal them and us attitude.
Work cannot be isolated from lifetime aspirations. The repercussions of your last employment carries forward with you to the next interview. You cannot shake off your employment past. That lowly salary you were coerced to accept become the new bench mark for all new opportunities. There is no such thing as intrinsic worth. The salary you get tomorrow depends and is directly related to the last salary you earn. If through no fault of yours you have to seek employment in a collapsed labour market your lifestyle and all hopes of where you might eventually rise to will depend on that next job you take. If you foregoe too soon on a skill and settle for something lesser but available, there is no easy going back. Sure if you are in a dying industry there are no forward options and you have to look sideways to what you might be able capitalise on. But if your industry is only in a temporary decline you have to hold on. Yet the government is forcing you to accept jobs well below your parity, blighting you and your families future.
Not an easy position to be put in. Glib for the government to demonise all those people out of work, those shiftless scroungers avoiding doing a decent days work and living off the state. Hits easy targets, but it conceals the personal tragedies that their reckless financial policies has brought about. So next time the government announces the 'unemployment' figures, shout back, no that is only the compliant few, count all those suffering.
What is wrong with this Government initiative, just making sure, the scroungers off the State, were making some effort to get a job? So the sanctimonious headline is crystal clear Government, good, scroungers, bad, find work, good, fail to find employment, bad. If only real life was as simple and easily separated into black and white issues! Everyone's expectation is to earn a decent living and contribute, to the fullest extent of their capabilities, to the welfare of their family, taking the fullest advantage of the rich rewards of this consumer driven society we are part of. So where does it all go wrong?
The downward spiral of any recessions, ultimately government manipulated or a consequences of government decisions, leaves a trail of redundant people. People in work with aspirations, suddenly without work or hope. Job opportunities evaporated. Looking globally across the nation and all work sectors there is still work to be had. The government can make its point by stating the number of unfilled job vacancies. Vacancies, but not necessarily available to the unemployed in specific locations, commitments and their work expectations.
There are a huge number of social concerns riding on the back of a job. In a fair and equitable society it just is not any job at any wage. Employers do take advantage of pressure on people to get a job, offering the least wage conditions and security they can get away with. Is it right that government should collude with the worst employers and force the unemployed to take a job no matter what conditions? Clearly not. Some employers consider the labour they take on simply as a means to squeeze as much profit out of these labour units as they can. Cutting vegetable outdoors in the fields in freezing conditions all weather is not a career option or even a work option of choice. It is work and has to be done. What does it say of our society when the unemployed are made to take on such work, because it is the only work available? Take meat packing factories, long shifts in chilled environments, monotonous work with no scope for skill. It has to be done. What about the recycling vans, out all weathers picking up the street edge boxes and selectively throwing the contents into the van. Nothing there to aspire you to a career or get satisfaction from a job well done. But it has to be done.
So there is the first issue. Employer have got to change and not regard their captive labour force simply as a unit to be exploited for their personal maximum benefit. They have to come to regard their workforce as their biggest longterm investment and find ways to incentivize them, win loyalty and proactively seek their employees contribution to improve the profit margins. The workforce is not the problem, it actually is the source of solutions, if only employers cast off the old feudal them and us attitude.
Work cannot be isolated from lifetime aspirations. The repercussions of your last employment carries forward with you to the next interview. You cannot shake off your employment past. That lowly salary you were coerced to accept become the new bench mark for all new opportunities. There is no such thing as intrinsic worth. The salary you get tomorrow depends and is directly related to the last salary you earn. If through no fault of yours you have to seek employment in a collapsed labour market your lifestyle and all hopes of where you might eventually rise to will depend on that next job you take. If you foregoe too soon on a skill and settle for something lesser but available, there is no easy going back. Sure if you are in a dying industry there are no forward options and you have to look sideways to what you might be able capitalise on. But if your industry is only in a temporary decline you have to hold on. Yet the government is forcing you to accept jobs well below your parity, blighting you and your families future.
Not an easy position to be put in. Glib for the government to demonise all those people out of work, those shiftless scroungers avoiding doing a decent days work and living off the state. Hits easy targets, but it conceals the personal tragedies that their reckless financial policies has brought about. So next time the government announces the 'unemployment' figures, shout back, no that is only the compliant few, count all those suffering.
Tuesday, 15 February 2011
Programme ratings
The most unlikely programmes get these surprisingly huge audiences, 7M at the last count. Everyone congratulates the programme for its cutting edge, insightful, raw drama, searing dialogue, what-ever content with the usual awards to follow.
Almost nothing to do about the quality of the actual programme. It is all to do about scheduling and the lack of any quality alternative. Despite the talk of the youth migrating to view on demand TV, the majority still settle down to watch scheduled TV. You only have to look at the keenly contested 8:00 and 9:00pm slots to see this. The problem and the irony is that with the ever increasing channels to choose from there is the stark lack of choice. American serials, the non-ending repeats of repeats and continually recycling old films. More often than you would care for there is little choice on offer at the key viewing times. Cheap to make reality show exploiting human vulnerabilities, game or makeover shows predicated on the same weakness and just occasionally a documentary that does not endlessly trail the content with a recap of the content incase you missed the laboured elementary point that was about to be made, except of course, first we must be shown what is coming up.
That may be the only diet our cousins across the atlantic can cope with but we Europeans are made of sterner stuff. We can take sharp, fast, insightful documentaries, just as we can absorb dramas with a credible plot that is sustained across all episodes and characters that grow and develop and can actually mouth dialogue that bears some resemblance to every day speech. With the everyday pap american skewed programme offerings is it any wonder when anything, anything that treats its audience as adults and gives them something tangible to watch and think about gets disproportionate viewing figures. Even if its apparent depths are superficial rather than sustainable, it is still better than alternate offerings. So a silent protest by the masses ever searching to find content that is not mind numbing infantile in concept.
Long gone are the expectations of routinely offerings of programmes of quality. But what a real treats when that occasional titbit does surfaces attracting veiwers well beyond its actually hitting power.
Almost nothing to do about the quality of the actual programme. It is all to do about scheduling and the lack of any quality alternative. Despite the talk of the youth migrating to view on demand TV, the majority still settle down to watch scheduled TV. You only have to look at the keenly contested 8:00 and 9:00pm slots to see this. The problem and the irony is that with the ever increasing channels to choose from there is the stark lack of choice. American serials, the non-ending repeats of repeats and continually recycling old films. More often than you would care for there is little choice on offer at the key viewing times. Cheap to make reality show exploiting human vulnerabilities, game or makeover shows predicated on the same weakness and just occasionally a documentary that does not endlessly trail the content with a recap of the content incase you missed the laboured elementary point that was about to be made, except of course, first we must be shown what is coming up.
That may be the only diet our cousins across the atlantic can cope with but we Europeans are made of sterner stuff. We can take sharp, fast, insightful documentaries, just as we can absorb dramas with a credible plot that is sustained across all episodes and characters that grow and develop and can actually mouth dialogue that bears some resemblance to every day speech. With the everyday pap american skewed programme offerings is it any wonder when anything, anything that treats its audience as adults and gives them something tangible to watch and think about gets disproportionate viewing figures. Even if its apparent depths are superficial rather than sustainable, it is still better than alternate offerings. So a silent protest by the masses ever searching to find content that is not mind numbing infantile in concept.
Long gone are the expectations of routinely offerings of programmes of quality. But what a real treats when that occasional titbit does surfaces attracting veiwers well beyond its actually hitting power.
Monday, 7 February 2011
Family Unit
Fact, as far as I am concerned, the best environment to bring up a child is within a stable marriage. This statement is not suitable to be a subject of a scientific proof and lies beyond belief, which requires an acceptance of some deity. It is the cornerstone of our development as a human person. Let us not beat about the bush. I mean opposite sex marriage, there is no other, period. No matter how political correctness might wish to fudge the issue, there is no other basis. It requires each sex to make the baby and to provide the best, richest (in stimulation) and supportive environment within which the child can confidently grow and mature, until ready to launch out on their own. Life deals rough cards, partners die and some are wildly false to their initial presentations. So a single parent is part of life mosaics but one of regret, not as a state of normality.
Bring these two contradictory sexes together, with opposing aspirations and inner conflicts, and it is a miracle that a stable long lasting partnership could ever emerge. Yet is has because it was the requisite platform for their progeny to prosper. Perhaps the key cornerstone of this survival was sheer economic necessity. Man and woman just had to stick together because that was only way to keep a roof over their heads and food to come in to feed the family. She had to stay at home to keep his home, look after the children, so he was able to go out and get work to provide for them. Yes of course, there were many permutations, both man and woman, or only woman, or all including children had to work. Yes I know, the man seldom looked after the home or the children if the woman had to work. I am not pretending it is any form of ideal life. Just that was how it was, over the centuries.
One result of female emancipation is that they have achieved financial independence. They are not longer dependant on a male to succeed and make progress in life, they can go entirely their own way. Bravo for that. We should perhaps be surprised that it is only one in three marriages that survive. The challenges of two sexes getting to live together is so great that, without that sheer financial necessity binding them, it is a constant wonder that any at all make it. Let us not under-estimate just how difficult it is for man and woman to live together with some degree of harmony. When the woman forms her attractive and protective nest and looks for reassurance and confirmation that she has done well it is easy to understand any frustration even resentment when the males comes in and fails to acknowledge the efforts. Why should she put up with the male trashing her objectives and ignoring her needs whilst he looks for new horizons and challenges. They are poles apart in aspiration yet so need each other and should be dependant on each other when it comes to raising their children.
Convention has it that after a separation the children go with the woman. Convention, but it also acknowledges the reality that the woman gives birth to the child and only she knows with degrees of certainty who the father actually is rather than the one who believes or accepts he is the sire. On a break-up, more often than not, the woman takes the child and then society arranges that she is granted sufficient of the couples estate to bring up the child. It is a win win for the woman freed from the shackles of the male, supported and nurtured by her society. Why should she choose any other route and why should she endure the inconvenience of putting up with a male in her domain. All the incentive are currently stacked against couples staying together.
The change point was small and insignificant in practical consequences but huge in terms of the social message it sent out. The ending of the Marriage Person Tax allowance, absurd in its triviality, yet it underlined that the State now considered a married couple no different to two people living together. It normalised a growing trend. The financial implications were slight but the message was clear. Why bother to get married when there was no advantage to do so. It confirmed getting married and, even more important, staying together was no longer the norm but now for the minority. Many of those that do now marry may not be together ten years later. Serial partners for the children is now the acceptable social currency. Marriage like Divorce are just part of the tools we use to arrange our affairs.
We as a Society have to make marriage matter as that is the only acceptable stable relationship within which to bring up children. I can see no other satisfactory option. Married couples have to be given priority by the State when it comes to Tax, Housing, Retirement, in all of its dealings. Harsh yes on those that fall out of marriage but that rather is the point. It has to hurt to not succeed else it is too easy to fail. Which is not to say we as a society do not need to be doubly compassionate with those that fail through no fault of their own.
But there is the point, we as a society have to be able to know with confidence they are victims of a 'no fault'. The community have to know and share in the person misfortunes so they can agree how blameless and how much compassionate support should be offered. Single mum's had better think twice before the deed unless they can stand on the rostrum and have their cry of rape accepted by the community that it occurred in. Pregnancy is not an incidental accident, it is as the result of a choice, to have sex. There is nothing to say that if a person wishes to keep their life private they should but then they cannot seek benefit merely because it hurts as a consequence.
The child is always the victim when a parent gets it wrong. We as a society have to choose our priorities then each of us have to moderate our behaviour to fit within those priorities established. For me quite clearly parents who stay together to bring up their children is an overriding priority. We as a society have no better arrangement to ensure the best possible start off in life for our children. There are prices to be paid and we need to ensure our compassion is freely and easily available to those deserving amongst us, as long as they choose to share their troubles.
Being a child of a failed broken marriage the last thing I would advocate is a marriage kept together just for the sake of the child. It is more a matter of how we handle the inevitable breakdown of some marriages. But before that it is raising the expectations of what it means to be married and what each partner is required to endure so that it can succeed. Helped to see the strengths in the partner not just the weaknesses and having as roles models couple living together, not individuals pursuing self-satisfaction.
Bring these two contradictory sexes together, with opposing aspirations and inner conflicts, and it is a miracle that a stable long lasting partnership could ever emerge. Yet is has because it was the requisite platform for their progeny to prosper. Perhaps the key cornerstone of this survival was sheer economic necessity. Man and woman just had to stick together because that was only way to keep a roof over their heads and food to come in to feed the family. She had to stay at home to keep his home, look after the children, so he was able to go out and get work to provide for them. Yes of course, there were many permutations, both man and woman, or only woman, or all including children had to work. Yes I know, the man seldom looked after the home or the children if the woman had to work. I am not pretending it is any form of ideal life. Just that was how it was, over the centuries.
One result of female emancipation is that they have achieved financial independence. They are not longer dependant on a male to succeed and make progress in life, they can go entirely their own way. Bravo for that. We should perhaps be surprised that it is only one in three marriages that survive. The challenges of two sexes getting to live together is so great that, without that sheer financial necessity binding them, it is a constant wonder that any at all make it. Let us not under-estimate just how difficult it is for man and woman to live together with some degree of harmony. When the woman forms her attractive and protective nest and looks for reassurance and confirmation that she has done well it is easy to understand any frustration even resentment when the males comes in and fails to acknowledge the efforts. Why should she put up with the male trashing her objectives and ignoring her needs whilst he looks for new horizons and challenges. They are poles apart in aspiration yet so need each other and should be dependant on each other when it comes to raising their children.
Convention has it that after a separation the children go with the woman. Convention, but it also acknowledges the reality that the woman gives birth to the child and only she knows with degrees of certainty who the father actually is rather than the one who believes or accepts he is the sire. On a break-up, more often than not, the woman takes the child and then society arranges that she is granted sufficient of the couples estate to bring up the child. It is a win win for the woman freed from the shackles of the male, supported and nurtured by her society. Why should she choose any other route and why should she endure the inconvenience of putting up with a male in her domain. All the incentive are currently stacked against couples staying together.
The change point was small and insignificant in practical consequences but huge in terms of the social message it sent out. The ending of the Marriage Person Tax allowance, absurd in its triviality, yet it underlined that the State now considered a married couple no different to two people living together. It normalised a growing trend. The financial implications were slight but the message was clear. Why bother to get married when there was no advantage to do so. It confirmed getting married and, even more important, staying together was no longer the norm but now for the minority. Many of those that do now marry may not be together ten years later. Serial partners for the children is now the acceptable social currency. Marriage like Divorce are just part of the tools we use to arrange our affairs.
We as a Society have to make marriage matter as that is the only acceptable stable relationship within which to bring up children. I can see no other satisfactory option. Married couples have to be given priority by the State when it comes to Tax, Housing, Retirement, in all of its dealings. Harsh yes on those that fall out of marriage but that rather is the point. It has to hurt to not succeed else it is too easy to fail. Which is not to say we as a society do not need to be doubly compassionate with those that fail through no fault of their own.
But there is the point, we as a society have to be able to know with confidence they are victims of a 'no fault'. The community have to know and share in the person misfortunes so they can agree how blameless and how much compassionate support should be offered. Single mum's had better think twice before the deed unless they can stand on the rostrum and have their cry of rape accepted by the community that it occurred in. Pregnancy is not an incidental accident, it is as the result of a choice, to have sex. There is nothing to say that if a person wishes to keep their life private they should but then they cannot seek benefit merely because it hurts as a consequence.
The child is always the victim when a parent gets it wrong. We as a society have to choose our priorities then each of us have to moderate our behaviour to fit within those priorities established. For me quite clearly parents who stay together to bring up their children is an overriding priority. We as a society have no better arrangement to ensure the best possible start off in life for our children. There are prices to be paid and we need to ensure our compassion is freely and easily available to those deserving amongst us, as long as they choose to share their troubles.
Being a child of a failed broken marriage the last thing I would advocate is a marriage kept together just for the sake of the child. It is more a matter of how we handle the inevitable breakdown of some marriages. But before that it is raising the expectations of what it means to be married and what each partner is required to endure so that it can succeed. Helped to see the strengths in the partner not just the weaknesses and having as roles models couple living together, not individuals pursuing self-satisfaction.
Tuesday, 1 February 2011
Raising Revenue
When the cost of providing good quality human interfaces, be it social care, restaurant service or answering customer queries becomes the overriding concern maybe it is time to take stock. Why do we use minimum wage staff, school children or third world call centre staff to respond to the complexities of human concerns. Simply because the hourly cost of employing staff is so high. If you paid a good wage to attract the best calibre of staff the services offered would be deemed too expensive.
Humans are remarkably adapt at carrying out complex, intricate, novel procedures and are able to apply these skills to operations over a period of time improving on their technique as they progress. Unlike machines they need variety, change of pace and swapping novelty for repetition. Men have and are being replaced by machines. Any repetitive task with a significant volume are increasingly being turned over to a machine. Humans are expensive to employ and have other ancillary non-productive social needs that make them even more expensive.
The traditional professions to large part owed the existence because of the information acquired over years of application. Yes there were other factors as well but the significant common theme was that they held the information on where to find, who would be able to provide, which consideration would apply. They relied on knowledge retrieval as the foundation of their particular skill. You had to use them as no one else had sufficient day to day recollection to know how to effect this or that. The professional bastion is being challenged by the online world where the very best information can be available to anyone anywhere. Information is no longer the privilege of a few but widely disseminated.
Just three acorns to get across the idea that the labour market as we used to know it is undergoing a silent revolution. It is now fact, we do not expect massive industrial complexes with thousands of people pouring in and out each shift to turn their wheels. This same scaling down of the numbers of people employed is spreading across all traditional work fronts. Yes some new employment industries are being created a long the way, but the slide, the direction of drift is clear. With a shrinking workforce in regular employment, Income Tax on the masses in employment as the main means of revenue generation is overdue a rethink.
Picking up on a theme I explore elsewhere, GB is a great marketing opportunity. High concentration of an affluent articulate population, compact with high density of interconnections and a gifted energetic advertising industry. A product maker or sellers dream. Great, but pay the going rate. Rather than Income Tax we should have Wealth Generation Tax. If you benefit from being in this country and selling to it then you will have to pay a tax on the income that arises. If you are just a distributor, everything manufactured overseas, shipped in and lorried around, a very high rate. If you have invested hugely in plant and or people, a very low minimal rate. If you don't produce goods or services but utilise your position here to make money, and I am thinking of Bankers, Insurances and footballers as examples, then extortionate rates apply.
There are many benefits and are sure to be many downfalls, but we have something worth charging for, the GB marketplace. If our revenue can shift to exploit that rather than adding to labour costs, who knows maybe, just maybe it will be possible to employ skilled persons again to interact with our citizens or craftsmen to fashion prototypes for production overseas..
Humans are remarkably adapt at carrying out complex, intricate, novel procedures and are able to apply these skills to operations over a period of time improving on their technique as they progress. Unlike machines they need variety, change of pace and swapping novelty for repetition. Men have and are being replaced by machines. Any repetitive task with a significant volume are increasingly being turned over to a machine. Humans are expensive to employ and have other ancillary non-productive social needs that make them even more expensive.
The traditional professions to large part owed the existence because of the information acquired over years of application. Yes there were other factors as well but the significant common theme was that they held the information on where to find, who would be able to provide, which consideration would apply. They relied on knowledge retrieval as the foundation of their particular skill. You had to use them as no one else had sufficient day to day recollection to know how to effect this or that. The professional bastion is being challenged by the online world where the very best information can be available to anyone anywhere. Information is no longer the privilege of a few but widely disseminated.
Just three acorns to get across the idea that the labour market as we used to know it is undergoing a silent revolution. It is now fact, we do not expect massive industrial complexes with thousands of people pouring in and out each shift to turn their wheels. This same scaling down of the numbers of people employed is spreading across all traditional work fronts. Yes some new employment industries are being created a long the way, but the slide, the direction of drift is clear. With a shrinking workforce in regular employment, Income Tax on the masses in employment as the main means of revenue generation is overdue a rethink.
Picking up on a theme I explore elsewhere, GB is a great marketing opportunity. High concentration of an affluent articulate population, compact with high density of interconnections and a gifted energetic advertising industry. A product maker or sellers dream. Great, but pay the going rate. Rather than Income Tax we should have Wealth Generation Tax. If you benefit from being in this country and selling to it then you will have to pay a tax on the income that arises. If you are just a distributor, everything manufactured overseas, shipped in and lorried around, a very high rate. If you have invested hugely in plant and or people, a very low minimal rate. If you don't produce goods or services but utilise your position here to make money, and I am thinking of Bankers, Insurances and footballers as examples, then extortionate rates apply.
There are many benefits and are sure to be many downfalls, but we have something worth charging for, the GB marketplace. If our revenue can shift to exploit that rather than adding to labour costs, who knows maybe, just maybe it will be possible to employ skilled persons again to interact with our citizens or craftsmen to fashion prototypes for production overseas..
Sunday, 30 January 2011
Good Government
Right, lets have a go at setting out what good government might be about. Certainly this will not be the all definitive, but at least a starting off point.
In the begining. Having clawed your way to the top of the tree, once there, there is every reason to believe you have a unique insight. Otherwise you would not be there, someone else would, who fought better or with more winning ideas. Once there you have the controls to arrange and organise things. Those under you, no doubt still wanting to claw their way up, have to conform to your edicts else there get pushed off the tree. You are surrounded with people who to your face agree with the sagacity of your opinions for fear of displeasing the dispenser of favours. Other than defending your perch from aspiring claimants you rule the roost. Everything conspires to confirm your particular view of the world is the right view, the only view. Having the taste of power, it is a natural consequence to keep and preferably to grow that power. Your decisions are most likely going to be directed to gathering more power to you. The end result is a centralised form of government. Only the top of the tree for this central government has any idea what is necessary. So plans accordingly.
My starting position is that no one in central government has a clue how best to arrange and organise services for my local parish community. Their solutions might be just fine for the grand cosmopolitan capital of our country. I doubt whether they fit as well in Peterborough or Newcastle or Penzance or Inverness. Each region and within each region, each local community has unique demands and challenges that don't fit well with the global, capital city orientated, solutions. Local people have to be involved in running the things that matter within their own communities. Free from the leaden constraints and dictate from some remote out-of-touch Ministry. To connect with their community they have to know that what they says matters, has impact and they will get to directly experience the consequences of their decisions. Involvement matters deeply. It is not just some superficial add-on, for its feel good factor, where the actual reins of authority firmly held off-stage, right or left.
Basically I think the hierarchy, parish to district to county to national is about right. However rather than top down I think it should be bottom up. The money and decisions should rest with the people and the community that need, decide to spend and receive goods or services. They decide at the point closest to the affected community the when, where and how. Calling on District or County facilities as necessary or otherwise sourcing local. Clearly there will be a range of different responses depending on whether your are a London inner borough, a home counties parish, a parish in Somerset or in Assynt. The expectations and standards will rightly differ with regard to any community issues from street lighting, road repairs, parking enforcement, rubbish collection or provision of care and support or whatever.
Obviously not all community requirements are appropriate at such a small community scale. Whilst a primary school might be possible not every community could sustain a secondary school, or drop-out centre or hospital. So here we have the transference upwards of resource allocation from Parish upto District or County. Competing against each other and other adjoining areas to attract the highest uptake for their particular provision, with no doubt, rewards for long term commitment. Each higher level up, operating with the current segregation between operational matters and those of legislative enforcement. The Legislative side disseminating standards to aspire to, checking on standards adopted and challenging where standards are found not to comply. Nothing black and white, the community have the right to adhere to non-conformity (compliance) so long as they can argue their cause.
At District and County levels there are social provisions that are just a factor of scale, not arising out of any particular community want. To get in the line of thought, for example, planning for new routes or distribution of services, providing analytical skills, monitoring of erosion or pollution. Clearly from one community scale to the next one up there are some things that just have to be funded at the next higher level up. So a right to a precept to permit this to happen seems logical. Except it needs accountability and challenge. The lower level in granting the precept renewal is entitled to a report and an account of what was done and is planned to be done and a vote on its continuance. Earning the support of the communities contributing has to be an essential, not a presumptive, right.
All the way up to National Government. The Counties decide what precept to grant the National Government and agree to continuing support for whatever is in the Nations interest, be it Defense, a new Trade Treaty, Secret Services or setting new standards guidelines. Only after receiving a report and account for the previous year. Challenging most certainly, a central government always on its toes having to carry the Nation along with it, seeking agreement and consent, very limiting. But how refreshing, the actual power base, the consent of the people, actually in touch and able to influence what is proposed to be done in their name. Not a distance, hands off electorate putting their mark on a simplified choice presented to them as a done deed by an inner caucus. Instead a vital living democracy is the goal in sight. This is the concept of a Small Society.
Uniformity across the land, in such an interconnected world, has to be the norm. We surely cannot have one set of rules applying in Cornwall and another set in Peterborough in contradiction to the rules applying in the Assynt. We need a strong central government to ensure we are all in conformity, we can travel around the land and be equally at ease and familiar where so ever we land and put down our head to rest. Why? From the top down it is obvious but from the bottom up it is no longer so self-apparent. Uniformity only if it is useful and of benefit to the local community. If they choose to go out on a limb, deny support for many regional or national precepts, play the dangerous game of isolation. Why not, in principle. If they are wrong they will live to regret and the costs will come to haunt them. More likely, as we are at natural heart, conformists only wanting to be in agreement and accord with those around us it is an unlikely scenario. But the option, the scarce remotest possibility, that a community in defiance of conformity, could break away and set up a new role model for the rest of us to learn from is exciting. It is the best way to keep our State fresh and self-renewing. Bring on the small man in his local community striving for a better future.
In the begining. Having clawed your way to the top of the tree, once there, there is every reason to believe you have a unique insight. Otherwise you would not be there, someone else would, who fought better or with more winning ideas. Once there you have the controls to arrange and organise things. Those under you, no doubt still wanting to claw their way up, have to conform to your edicts else there get pushed off the tree. You are surrounded with people who to your face agree with the sagacity of your opinions for fear of displeasing the dispenser of favours. Other than defending your perch from aspiring claimants you rule the roost. Everything conspires to confirm your particular view of the world is the right view, the only view. Having the taste of power, it is a natural consequence to keep and preferably to grow that power. Your decisions are most likely going to be directed to gathering more power to you. The end result is a centralised form of government. Only the top of the tree for this central government has any idea what is necessary. So plans accordingly.
My starting position is that no one in central government has a clue how best to arrange and organise services for my local parish community. Their solutions might be just fine for the grand cosmopolitan capital of our country. I doubt whether they fit as well in Peterborough or Newcastle or Penzance or Inverness. Each region and within each region, each local community has unique demands and challenges that don't fit well with the global, capital city orientated, solutions. Local people have to be involved in running the things that matter within their own communities. Free from the leaden constraints and dictate from some remote out-of-touch Ministry. To connect with their community they have to know that what they says matters, has impact and they will get to directly experience the consequences of their decisions. Involvement matters deeply. It is not just some superficial add-on, for its feel good factor, where the actual reins of authority firmly held off-stage, right or left.
Basically I think the hierarchy, parish to district to county to national is about right. However rather than top down I think it should be bottom up. The money and decisions should rest with the people and the community that need, decide to spend and receive goods or services. They decide at the point closest to the affected community the when, where and how. Calling on District or County facilities as necessary or otherwise sourcing local. Clearly there will be a range of different responses depending on whether your are a London inner borough, a home counties parish, a parish in Somerset or in Assynt. The expectations and standards will rightly differ with regard to any community issues from street lighting, road repairs, parking enforcement, rubbish collection or provision of care and support or whatever.
Obviously not all community requirements are appropriate at such a small community scale. Whilst a primary school might be possible not every community could sustain a secondary school, or drop-out centre or hospital. So here we have the transference upwards of resource allocation from Parish upto District or County. Competing against each other and other adjoining areas to attract the highest uptake for their particular provision, with no doubt, rewards for long term commitment. Each higher level up, operating with the current segregation between operational matters and those of legislative enforcement. The Legislative side disseminating standards to aspire to, checking on standards adopted and challenging where standards are found not to comply. Nothing black and white, the community have the right to adhere to non-conformity (compliance) so long as they can argue their cause.
At District and County levels there are social provisions that are just a factor of scale, not arising out of any particular community want. To get in the line of thought, for example, planning for new routes or distribution of services, providing analytical skills, monitoring of erosion or pollution. Clearly from one community scale to the next one up there are some things that just have to be funded at the next higher level up. So a right to a precept to permit this to happen seems logical. Except it needs accountability and challenge. The lower level in granting the precept renewal is entitled to a report and an account of what was done and is planned to be done and a vote on its continuance. Earning the support of the communities contributing has to be an essential, not a presumptive, right.
All the way up to National Government. The Counties decide what precept to grant the National Government and agree to continuing support for whatever is in the Nations interest, be it Defense, a new Trade Treaty, Secret Services or setting new standards guidelines. Only after receiving a report and account for the previous year. Challenging most certainly, a central government always on its toes having to carry the Nation along with it, seeking agreement and consent, very limiting. But how refreshing, the actual power base, the consent of the people, actually in touch and able to influence what is proposed to be done in their name. Not a distance, hands off electorate putting their mark on a simplified choice presented to them as a done deed by an inner caucus. Instead a vital living democracy is the goal in sight. This is the concept of a Small Society.
Uniformity across the land, in such an interconnected world, has to be the norm. We surely cannot have one set of rules applying in Cornwall and another set in Peterborough in contradiction to the rules applying in the Assynt. We need a strong central government to ensure we are all in conformity, we can travel around the land and be equally at ease and familiar where so ever we land and put down our head to rest. Why? From the top down it is obvious but from the bottom up it is no longer so self-apparent. Uniformity only if it is useful and of benefit to the local community. If they choose to go out on a limb, deny support for many regional or national precepts, play the dangerous game of isolation. Why not, in principle. If they are wrong they will live to regret and the costs will come to haunt them. More likely, as we are at natural heart, conformists only wanting to be in agreement and accord with those around us it is an unlikely scenario. But the option, the scarce remotest possibility, that a community in defiance of conformity, could break away and set up a new role model for the rest of us to learn from is exciting. It is the best way to keep our State fresh and self-renewing. Bring on the small man in his local community striving for a better future.
Saturday, 29 January 2011
Power to the People
Micheal Sandels extraordinary pitch on BBC4 for his Justice and philosophy course at Harvard was an eye-opener. I have reservations about all snakeoil salesmen setting out their table with a scare story and then the promise of a world exclusive remedy if only you buy into the course, book, video or whatever. Be that as it may, the point for me was that Bentham, Kant and Aristotle's attempts to provide a philosophical framework able to answer societies toughest questions fell short of the mark. The ordinary person in the street seemed to have, bye and large, a canny understanding and a feel for where the fairness lay in those absurd hypothetical situations put to them. Absurd, but granted they did push the moral dilemma selected to the limits, polarising the options. Fine, if your accept the Sandels pre-determination of the moral conflict reflects the dilemma's our society might have to face. I suspect it showcases the point he wishes to demonstrate but might have limited value beyond that. Not reflective of life as experienced. Certainly it is not within my skills to appraise Sandels contribution. As a final point I do note that Sandels subsequent contributions all seems to revolve around the same issue, ending up at the same loose end. No sequence and build-up to a shared understanding. Just a go on and buy his book to find the answers to the universe and life? Not for me.
In counter point to that, Andrew Neil's 'Posh and Posher' BBC2 was a well assembled and orchestrated package. Ordinarily I find Andrew Neil hard to stomach, his self-opinionated smarm gets in the way. But what a good package was put together. A bit leaden as we padded self-evidently from one plank to the next but it did in the end build to a cohesive whole. So okay, I differ with him in the detail conclusions drawn, but the main thrust was unambiguous. The meritocracy that came in mid to late 1900's has been brushed aside and elitism rules day yet again.
What has caught my eye with both these programmes is firstly the common sense shown by those ordinary people in the street. In the main they have a feel for the things that concern them and they have a flair for knowing which direction they think the answers lies. Even if they are not always skilled in separating out their ideas or putting their answers into articulates phrases. The other thing that came across to me strongly is this underlying sense that we as a society are groping about for a new definition of community and how we as individuals relate and feed into it. That to me is the most rewarding and encouraging idea. Suddenly I am no longer writing this blog in isolation, a loner heading off to the next windmill. I am just part of this mass directionless searching around for a better solution.
What is crystal clear to me is that it has nothing to do with the Government. Their eyes are right off the ball looking in the totally wrong directions for what meets and will satisfy the peoples needs. Nor is it the Big Society so beloved of David Cameron. That is such a way off the mark. What we ordinary people are looking for is the Small Society, that which we can respond to, relate with and most of all contribute to without some remote organisation breathing down our necks telling us we are wrong.
In counter point to that, Andrew Neil's 'Posh and Posher' BBC2 was a well assembled and orchestrated package. Ordinarily I find Andrew Neil hard to stomach, his self-opinionated smarm gets in the way. But what a good package was put together. A bit leaden as we padded self-evidently from one plank to the next but it did in the end build to a cohesive whole. So okay, I differ with him in the detail conclusions drawn, but the main thrust was unambiguous. The meritocracy that came in mid to late 1900's has been brushed aside and elitism rules day yet again.
What has caught my eye with both these programmes is firstly the common sense shown by those ordinary people in the street. In the main they have a feel for the things that concern them and they have a flair for knowing which direction they think the answers lies. Even if they are not always skilled in separating out their ideas or putting their answers into articulates phrases. The other thing that came across to me strongly is this underlying sense that we as a society are groping about for a new definition of community and how we as individuals relate and feed into it. That to me is the most rewarding and encouraging idea. Suddenly I am no longer writing this blog in isolation, a loner heading off to the next windmill. I am just part of this mass directionless searching around for a better solution.
What is crystal clear to me is that it has nothing to do with the Government. Their eyes are right off the ball looking in the totally wrong directions for what meets and will satisfy the peoples needs. Nor is it the Big Society so beloved of David Cameron. That is such a way off the mark. What we ordinary people are looking for is the Small Society, that which we can respond to, relate with and most of all contribute to without some remote organisation breathing down our necks telling us we are wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)