Perhaps mislead by years of Blair and Brown announcing new "initiatives" , not by saying what was to be done but simply declaring "... and we will spend £xx billion on...........", current statements from Government departments about "the cuts" seem to assume that the reverse equation that less income/subsidy = less output/activity is true. Not so.
The private sector has for years known that this is a false belief.There each year managements have been pressed to do more with less .Their survival at the next performance review has depended on achieving it. Proceedures and processes have been simplified and steamlined, and obstacles removed .Often the clearing away of a layer or two of management and a reduction in the number of people tripping over or creating work for each other has been stunningly succesful. It may be a novel concept in some areas of the hitherto very secure public sector but it has to happen .Current levels of expenditure and often lower than commercial productivity are unsustainable. This is indeed a revolution.
Government departments,Qangos and local authorities have so far been reacting to spending cuts by simply hacking out activities while preserving central and administrative costs and notably some very highly paid management roles. It's easy to do and some of course don't want "the cuts" to work anyway.
There is need for short,sharp notice from the top. "You are expected to run all, or as many existing services as possible with no diminution in quality. Your task is to say how you will do it, not how much you won't do. If this is too much for you kindly step aside and we will have others with a more open minds and energy do it." This should receive applause from the taxpayer.
Saturday, 19 March 2011
"There was an air of enthusiasm..........."
"There was an air of enthusiasm with every man and woman prepared to do their own and any other job 24 hours a day if need be".
So said Sir Keith Granville,ultimately Chairman of BOAC about his life on joining Imperial Airways as a ten shillings a week trainee. (Source, reasearched by John Williams is the April 1974 edition of British Airways Overseas Divisions staff magazine "Speedbird" which celebrated the 50th anniversary of the creation of Imperial Airways).
And then there came the unions ostensibly to better the lot of the employee. Restrictive working practices, limited hours,sharp demarcation lines, meal breaks, rest periods,higher wages, all presumably to make the employee better paid and happier.
Or maybe not. Compare the happiness/smile factor of some highly unionised legacy airlines with their high pay,plethora of addtional allowances, generous rest periods, lengthy layovers and highly specific working practices with some of the more recent British and overseas lower paid, harder working and non or much less unionised and union minded ones. Which are less strike prone and the most pleasant to fly with? Which come over as the most human?
In any industry it's all about ethos,- and a realisation that hard work can be more interesting and satisfying than taking it easy and in extremis being bored out of one's skull all day. It can be argued that, far from making people's lives better and happier, the unions have disempowered them and turned interesting jobs into drudgery. Barriers between jobs and between employees and their managements have been artificially erected and exploited. Not surprising as unions need unhappy, not highly motivated, people. Where this demoralisation has happened it shows, be it in service businesses like airlines or in the Friday afternoon car. Sir Keith and his colleagues had it right, ten shillings a week and all.
So said Sir Keith Granville,ultimately Chairman of BOAC about his life on joining Imperial Airways as a ten shillings a week trainee. (Source, reasearched by John Williams is the April 1974 edition of British Airways Overseas Divisions staff magazine "Speedbird" which celebrated the 50th anniversary of the creation of Imperial Airways).
And then there came the unions ostensibly to better the lot of the employee. Restrictive working practices, limited hours,sharp demarcation lines, meal breaks, rest periods,higher wages, all presumably to make the employee better paid and happier.
Or maybe not. Compare the happiness/smile factor of some highly unionised legacy airlines with their high pay,plethora of addtional allowances, generous rest periods, lengthy layovers and highly specific working practices with some of the more recent British and overseas lower paid, harder working and non or much less unionised and union minded ones. Which are less strike prone and the most pleasant to fly with? Which come over as the most human?
In any industry it's all about ethos,- and a realisation that hard work can be more interesting and satisfying than taking it easy and in extremis being bored out of one's skull all day. It can be argued that, far from making people's lives better and happier, the unions have disempowered them and turned interesting jobs into drudgery. Barriers between jobs and between employees and their managements have been artificially erected and exploited. Not surprising as unions need unhappy, not highly motivated, people. Where this demoralisation has happened it shows, be it in service businesses like airlines or in the Friday afternoon car. Sir Keith and his colleagues had it right, ten shillings a week and all.
Tuesday, 15 March 2011
Lib Dem Spring Conference,- Grateful for Media no Fly Zone?
Nick Clegg was probably grateful for the virtual news blackout of last weekend's Lib Dem SpringFest in Sheffield. The media's preoccupation with Japan and the Middle East ensured that most attention was elsewhere and coverage of the Yorkshire gathering was patchy. Although well contained the gathering could not conceal the reality that what masquerades as a single party is probably several.
With no chance of ever exercising real power on its own, the party has heitherto been able to range far and wide and be the political wing of assorted groups of banner wavers. It has encompassed almost Conservarive Liberal Tories, people pretty close to where David Cameron really is, through to others certainly to the left of New Labour and some probably to the left even of New Old Labour (the brand of the 2 Eds). It contains both liberal views about a free trading economy, less state control and the importance of individuals and their freedoms through to some very illiberal ones enthusisatic about collectivism, monopoly state suppliers and less choice in public services and life in general. No wonder the party presents a confused and often hostile to anything face.
To take one area of philosophical confusion, the protesters about student fees are saying that the costs of educating the fortunate people who progress to tertiary education should be shared by those who do not.Similarly, those protesting about the proposed reform of largely unfunded (ie they come out of current annual government expenditure, reducing the amount available for other purposes) public sector pensions are saying that those in the private sector whose schemes were in many cases seriously undermined by Gordon Brown's tax swoop should pay for these generally better and fully guaranteed schemes. In both cases , why should they? Does the ludicrousness of the propositions not appear to those who say they are wedded to equality, fairness in society and all those good things? Is it a one way street? Public sector good? Private sector bad? That doesn't sound very liberal.
One has to sympathise with the actually rather brave Nick Clegg for trying to explain simply to his party the benefits that being in the coalition government has brought in terms of being able to dispropotionately influence policy and get things they want. This has been far more efective than shouting into space and waving banners from the sidelines. In May 2010 the Lib Dems had a constitutional duty to ensure that Gordon Brown, clinging for several days to the possibility of not calling in the removal vans, was removed from office.They did that and by entering the coalition have secured probably more than they could have ever hoped. David Cameron has been far more accomodating than Brown and his comrades, indeed comrades, were ever likely to have been. Some of the party's supporters have abandoned them at least for the time being. Some would have liked to see an unholy alliance with Brown & Co and some would have simply liked to say "Neither of the above" and,apart from the occasional deal on which way to vote, have languished in sulky irrelevance.
The Lib Dems now have the opportunity to redefining their position towards the admittedly rather crowded centre and representing themselves as the real third way. They are making some progress and enjoying the taste of power but still don't seem grown up enough to seize the moment, shed their illiberal side and look like a real alternative to the Big Two (Parties, not Eds). Fortunately for them the unlikely pair, the natural disaster in Japan and the unnatural one in Libya have ridden to their rescue and ensured that few have paid much attention to what was going on in Sheffield.
With no chance of ever exercising real power on its own, the party has heitherto been able to range far and wide and be the political wing of assorted groups of banner wavers. It has encompassed almost Conservarive Liberal Tories, people pretty close to where David Cameron really is, through to others certainly to the left of New Labour and some probably to the left even of New Old Labour (the brand of the 2 Eds). It contains both liberal views about a free trading economy, less state control and the importance of individuals and their freedoms through to some very illiberal ones enthusisatic about collectivism, monopoly state suppliers and less choice in public services and life in general. No wonder the party presents a confused and often hostile to anything face.
To take one area of philosophical confusion, the protesters about student fees are saying that the costs of educating the fortunate people who progress to tertiary education should be shared by those who do not.Similarly, those protesting about the proposed reform of largely unfunded (ie they come out of current annual government expenditure, reducing the amount available for other purposes) public sector pensions are saying that those in the private sector whose schemes were in many cases seriously undermined by Gordon Brown's tax swoop should pay for these generally better and fully guaranteed schemes. In both cases , why should they? Does the ludicrousness of the propositions not appear to those who say they are wedded to equality, fairness in society and all those good things? Is it a one way street? Public sector good? Private sector bad? That doesn't sound very liberal.
One has to sympathise with the actually rather brave Nick Clegg for trying to explain simply to his party the benefits that being in the coalition government has brought in terms of being able to dispropotionately influence policy and get things they want. This has been far more efective than shouting into space and waving banners from the sidelines. In May 2010 the Lib Dems had a constitutional duty to ensure that Gordon Brown, clinging for several days to the possibility of not calling in the removal vans, was removed from office.They did that and by entering the coalition have secured probably more than they could have ever hoped. David Cameron has been far more accomodating than Brown and his comrades, indeed comrades, were ever likely to have been. Some of the party's supporters have abandoned them at least for the time being. Some would have liked to see an unholy alliance with Brown & Co and some would have simply liked to say "Neither of the above" and,apart from the occasional deal on which way to vote, have languished in sulky irrelevance.
The Lib Dems now have the opportunity to redefining their position towards the admittedly rather crowded centre and representing themselves as the real third way. They are making some progress and enjoying the taste of power but still don't seem grown up enough to seize the moment, shed their illiberal side and look like a real alternative to the Big Two (Parties, not Eds). Fortunately for them the unlikely pair, the natural disaster in Japan and the unnatural one in Libya have ridden to their rescue and ensured that few have paid much attention to what was going on in Sheffield.
Saturday, 5 March 2011
No,- The Middle East isn't all the same.
After a few weeks of seeing 24/7 news channels and printed media churn out item after item on the surge of disturbances and uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East and forecasting similar ends to all the regimes concerned , it is interesting to see if Libya will bring some of the pundits to a juddering halt.
It could just be that the Gaddafi regime will hang on in there,unhung, for quite some time. During that life extension it is likely that,as in Iraq where the West encouraged dissenters to show themselves in uprisings as the Kuwait relieving forces surged towards Baghdad before withdrawing and leaving them defenceless,the regime will study all those news broadcasts of rebels, round them up and deal with them mercilessly.Egypt looks as if it may sort itself out although time is short and it is totally new to what we see as normal parliamentary style democracy. Jordan, Oman and Bahrein all face very different sources of dissent, not all of them benign, and one can be sure that wherever Iran sees an opportunity to muddy the pool it will do so.
The uprisings and demonstrations have been a useful wakeup call to anyone who assumed that the current status quo could go on unaltered for ever and have underlined the importance of speeding up progress towards better and good governance if not full, one man/woman one vote democracy. In some states there may be a loosening of central controls and in others a loosening of purse strings but letting go will come hard in an area often kept together and away from destructive feuding by what we would see as authoritarian rule. The cancerous features of corruption and nepotism probably infuriate populations and particularly the aspirant middle classes more than the inability to occasionally tick a ballot paper.
To assume identical "democracy must win" outcomes across the region is unrealistic and in any case "good governance must win" would be a better goal. Here in the UK we have democracy but do we always have good governance? Is everyone equal before the law? Celebreties' personal lives are more shielded from the media than those of the rest of the population. The police will create a rolling roadblock on a motorway to protect a rock star or model from the press but will not attend a house burglary unless the occupant is rich or "influential". Objectors to a planning application which may have been discussed for many months and hours between councils and developers collectively have a total of five minutes to express their objections. Celebreties caught speeding are much more likely to be fined rather than banned than white van man or the sales rep because their ability to drive is seen as being of much higher value... and so it goes on in countless ways great and small. Let's not kid ourselves. Democracy is meant to be the best way of achieving good and fair governance but it doesn't guarantee it.
Much of the anger we are seeing across the world's undemocratic regimes,- or not in the case of North Korea,-is more about greedy self perpetuating regimes and their hangers on than democracy per se. Again democracy is seen as the best way of disposing of these and thereby achieving at least better governance and a fairer deal and equality of opportunity for all. Democracy is not in itelf the guarantee. Even in the UK where the monarchy is broadly accepted and even loved by some, it is the behaviour and remoteness of lesser royals and their assosciates which most threatens its continuation.
The North Africa, Middle East and Gulf states are all very different as is the real nature and performance of its many governments. It is time for the pundits and commentators standing against their preferred backdrops of riots (always look at what is going on in the background to see what is really happening and how life is in some of these scenes),roadblocks, destroyed buildings,chaotic hospitals or even the palm trees of Baghdad ,to back off. Instant wisdom is seldom that. Many of the correspondents and commentators have previously had little , if anything, to do with the Arab world and are a million miles from understanding it. The solutions will come from within, not from western intervention. So far William Hague has played a very measured and astute game for the UK by condemning atrocities but keeping well away from any rash and hasty actions. He knows we have no control over the outcomes which will differ from country to country and across the short, medium and long terms . He knows also that we will have to have relationships with whoever wins and leads in any time frame and be able to influence them as much as possible without appearing perfidious. Only a few weeks ago we were Gaddafi's friend, just as we had been Saddam Hussein's when he was fighting Iran. The Arabs are astute and will have a view on this and our reliabilty. They value old friends highly and are pretty good at sussing out who is for real and who is all facade. Sorry Tony if you haven't already grasped this. Just having a sun tan and motorcade won't do. It's what they say amongst themselves as you drive away that counts. The current situation is multi faceted, multi layered and extremely complex, the product of centuries. Setting a UK position other than championing good governance would not be helpful at this stage. Other than rescuing people in immediate danger, foreigners need to play it long and let the people of the region resolve the issues themselves.
It could just be that the Gaddafi regime will hang on in there,unhung, for quite some time. During that life extension it is likely that,as in Iraq where the West encouraged dissenters to show themselves in uprisings as the Kuwait relieving forces surged towards Baghdad before withdrawing and leaving them defenceless,the regime will study all those news broadcasts of rebels, round them up and deal with them mercilessly.Egypt looks as if it may sort itself out although time is short and it is totally new to what we see as normal parliamentary style democracy. Jordan, Oman and Bahrein all face very different sources of dissent, not all of them benign, and one can be sure that wherever Iran sees an opportunity to muddy the pool it will do so.
The uprisings and demonstrations have been a useful wakeup call to anyone who assumed that the current status quo could go on unaltered for ever and have underlined the importance of speeding up progress towards better and good governance if not full, one man/woman one vote democracy. In some states there may be a loosening of central controls and in others a loosening of purse strings but letting go will come hard in an area often kept together and away from destructive feuding by what we would see as authoritarian rule. The cancerous features of corruption and nepotism probably infuriate populations and particularly the aspirant middle classes more than the inability to occasionally tick a ballot paper.
To assume identical "democracy must win" outcomes across the region is unrealistic and in any case "good governance must win" would be a better goal. Here in the UK we have democracy but do we always have good governance? Is everyone equal before the law? Celebreties' personal lives are more shielded from the media than those of the rest of the population. The police will create a rolling roadblock on a motorway to protect a rock star or model from the press but will not attend a house burglary unless the occupant is rich or "influential". Objectors to a planning application which may have been discussed for many months and hours between councils and developers collectively have a total of five minutes to express their objections. Celebreties caught speeding are much more likely to be fined rather than banned than white van man or the sales rep because their ability to drive is seen as being of much higher value... and so it goes on in countless ways great and small. Let's not kid ourselves. Democracy is meant to be the best way of achieving good and fair governance but it doesn't guarantee it.
Much of the anger we are seeing across the world's undemocratic regimes,- or not in the case of North Korea,-is more about greedy self perpetuating regimes and their hangers on than democracy per se. Again democracy is seen as the best way of disposing of these and thereby achieving at least better governance and a fairer deal and equality of opportunity for all. Democracy is not in itelf the guarantee. Even in the UK where the monarchy is broadly accepted and even loved by some, it is the behaviour and remoteness of lesser royals and their assosciates which most threatens its continuation.
The North Africa, Middle East and Gulf states are all very different as is the real nature and performance of its many governments. It is time for the pundits and commentators standing against their preferred backdrops of riots (always look at what is going on in the background to see what is really happening and how life is in some of these scenes),roadblocks, destroyed buildings,chaotic hospitals or even the palm trees of Baghdad ,to back off. Instant wisdom is seldom that. Many of the correspondents and commentators have previously had little , if anything, to do with the Arab world and are a million miles from understanding it. The solutions will come from within, not from western intervention. So far William Hague has played a very measured and astute game for the UK by condemning atrocities but keeping well away from any rash and hasty actions. He knows we have no control over the outcomes which will differ from country to country and across the short, medium and long terms . He knows also that we will have to have relationships with whoever wins and leads in any time frame and be able to influence them as much as possible without appearing perfidious. Only a few weeks ago we were Gaddafi's friend, just as we had been Saddam Hussein's when he was fighting Iran. The Arabs are astute and will have a view on this and our reliabilty. They value old friends highly and are pretty good at sussing out who is for real and who is all facade. Sorry Tony if you haven't already grasped this. Just having a sun tan and motorcade won't do. It's what they say amongst themselves as you drive away that counts. The current situation is multi faceted, multi layered and extremely complex, the product of centuries. Setting a UK position other than championing good governance would not be helpful at this stage. Other than rescuing people in immediate danger, foreigners need to play it long and let the people of the region resolve the issues themselves.
Sunday, 13 February 2011
Hotels- "A bath for the night ?"
A few years go in Simonstown, South Africa we came across a new look room in a B and B. Spacious and comfortable, it was truly en suite. The toilet stood fair and rounded in the middle of the room not far from the bed. It was truly the centrepiece and it's occupant could chat to anyone present. All rather Louis XIV.
We dismissed this as some sort of quirky abberation and moved to another with a more conventional layout, thinking we were never likely to encounter similar again.
We were wrong. More and more writeups in travel magazines talk admiringly of luxurious bath and ablution arrangements of all sorts situated right there in the room along with what used to be the main reason for staying in a hotel- the bed. Some are lightly and certainly not sound proof curtained off. Some are just open plan. A writeup of a recently opened Swire owned boutique hotel in the UK says that the entrance is through the bathing area. Even in Royal Windsor a few weeks ago in a pleasant hotel overlooking the castle walls, we were proudly shown our room complete with all facilities open plan albeit with some partial glass screening. The throne itself in its glass cubicle was visible from the whole room bar a few blind spots where mirrors were thoughtfully provided to ensure that nothing was missed.
Can we expect hotels to now start offering the old airline option in the days of central IFE screens,- "Viewing or non viewing?".For those of us who like to select a hotel for the comfort of the sleeping and lounging about arrangements the notion that some choose the best place for a public bath and pee is a little bit strange . Personally we won't be booking on the basis of bath nights. We prefer hotels which stick with bed nights. Are we alone?
We dismissed this as some sort of quirky abberation and moved to another with a more conventional layout, thinking we were never likely to encounter similar again.
We were wrong. More and more writeups in travel magazines talk admiringly of luxurious bath and ablution arrangements of all sorts situated right there in the room along with what used to be the main reason for staying in a hotel- the bed. Some are lightly and certainly not sound proof curtained off. Some are just open plan. A writeup of a recently opened Swire owned boutique hotel in the UK says that the entrance is through the bathing area. Even in Royal Windsor a few weeks ago in a pleasant hotel overlooking the castle walls, we were proudly shown our room complete with all facilities open plan albeit with some partial glass screening. The throne itself in its glass cubicle was visible from the whole room bar a few blind spots where mirrors were thoughtfully provided to ensure that nothing was missed.
Can we expect hotels to now start offering the old airline option in the days of central IFE screens,- "Viewing or non viewing?".For those of us who like to select a hotel for the comfort of the sleeping and lounging about arrangements the notion that some choose the best place for a public bath and pee is a little bit strange . Personally we won't be booking on the basis of bath nights. We prefer hotels which stick with bed nights. Are we alone?
UK Cuts? - No, a revolution but with dreadful PR.
For a good year now, and even more so since May 6th 2010, every UK news bulletin,newspaper and magazine has been pretty well guaranteed to carry the latest shock, horror "government cuts" story.Before the Election, despite most of the Labour leadership's,- yes, that included our two now reycled Eds,- apparent reluctance to acknowledge that there was much of a problem, the debate was mostly about how much and how fast to cut. All spoke about reducing or getting rid of the defecit by which many of the electorate thought they meant the accumulated mountain of economy sapping interest paying National Debt. In fact none of the parties meant that. They were just talking about reducing or eventually eliminating the annual increase to it caused by annual overspending since 2000 by Gordon Brown,one of the spend, spend, spend school of economists whose understanding of basic sums, never mind maths, is somewhat suspect.Any old fashioned housewife in charge of a domestic budget could have put him right but sadly his meetings with real housewives weren't a notable success.
Once in sort of power and having had a chance to see even a summary of the books, the Con/Lib coalition leaders must have been horrified. The figures, worstening by the second, included substantial expenditure like new aircraft carriers designed mainly to protect employment on the Clyde which was locked in for years to come thereby shifting the burden of cuts disproportionately to other things.
In fairness the coalition didn't help themselves in this skewing the zones for cuts by red ringing the NHS and overseas aid, both items which are poorly controlled in total and in use.
Unless the citizens of UK Plc. are prepared to accept debilitating and ever rising taxation for mediocre public services,nothing short of a revolutionary approach to government spending and the size of the state will do the job.
The coalition had no option therefore but to go for a revolution in thinking and resultant spending which would go right back to the roots of the introduction of the now crippling Welfare State in 1948. Uncosted in any great detail and certainly not understood for its medium and long term implications,it was an economic millstone from which the UK has never recovered. Nobody would argue with the need for a safety net to ensure that the poorest in society were provided with a reasonable basic standard of living and good healthcare and education. The Welfare State however went far and astronomically expensively beyond that, providing for all in society, from top to bottom usually via inevitably inefficient state run monopoly suppliers.And this was at a time when the country, exhausted by two World Wars was exhaused and broke and needed every penny it could muster to rebuild its infrastructure and industry. Instead of using schemes such as the Marshall Plan and more recently the huge windfalls of the North Sea oil bonanza to do ,that the UK failed to seize the opportunity with the result that it has little or nothing of lasting value to show for the money that has passed through its national coffers. If the UK had red ringed the North Sea income for major long term national projects we could have had a wonderful infrastructure, schools and hospitals as memorials to our temporary geological good fortune. It didn't do that. Instead it continued to spend more on more on out of control state expenditure and welfare to all and social engineering while government and local authority payrolls ballooned with countless superflous and some almost laughably titled new jobs.
All this has given the coalition a wonderful opportunity to state clearly a new philosphy of a very different way of life, much less dependent on the state, much more self sufficient and ultimately with much lower (ideally straight rate,-it works) taxation and much more efficient and higher quality public services, competitively supplied to those who need them. It has in fact embarked on this but without the courage to lable it as a revolution rather than cuts and explain the whole deal and its advantages in simple terms. The label "The Big Society " just doesn't cut it. As result the coalition is losing the PR battle for what should be seen as a dynamic, essential and visionary new approach to life which will bring big long term dividends to us and our children. A new version of Alistair Campbell , less some of the features, is needed to get a grip on Government communication of the perfectly simple, logical and reasonable as is an understanding of how the man and woman in the street see things. Unfortunately, like Royalty, top level politicians particularly on the government side, quicky become isolated from reality and hearing what real people are saying. By the nature of the animal this affects the Conservative Party more than Labour or the Lib Dems. Very few, if any ,of the top tier sit in cafes, pubs, commuter trains and other places where they might hear "normal "people chatting, grunbling and worrying. They become isolated amongst their own kind, be they old Etonians or socialist party aristocracy. When cabinet members and their shadows use the NHS do they wait in A&E on plastic seats for 4 hours? When they want to go to Manchester by train on a Friday evening do they queue in the pens at Euston? It is unlikely. As result maybe they lose sight of the need to communicate, communicate, communicate with the electorate in straightforward, simple non spin terms? At the moment the coalition certainly seems to have a poor feel for bear traps which they should avoid. They don't have the right listening devices,- called people,-out there and feeding back reality to the stratified leadership. They are never going to win the sale of forrest argument against those who fear the loss of Squirrel Nutkin's home.They should have seen that and dismissed the idea as simply not worth it for the saving however good the real argument may be. The same goes for other perfectly good, sensible and even essential cuts. Properly packaged into a strong well explained philosophy of a real non welfare dependent society and they are saleable. The lable "The Big Society" is failing because it is too nebulous, weak and does not excite.
It's time for the coalition to get a grip on its message or risk five years of pain only to hand back the mended economy to Balls & Co (forget the other struggling Ed) to go on another binge of borrow and spend for which we and the next generation at least will pay an appalling price.
Once in sort of power and having had a chance to see even a summary of the books, the Con/Lib coalition leaders must have been horrified. The figures, worstening by the second, included substantial expenditure like new aircraft carriers designed mainly to protect employment on the Clyde which was locked in for years to come thereby shifting the burden of cuts disproportionately to other things.
In fairness the coalition didn't help themselves in this skewing the zones for cuts by red ringing the NHS and overseas aid, both items which are poorly controlled in total and in use.
Unless the citizens of UK Plc. are prepared to accept debilitating and ever rising taxation for mediocre public services,nothing short of a revolutionary approach to government spending and the size of the state will do the job.
The coalition had no option therefore but to go for a revolution in thinking and resultant spending which would go right back to the roots of the introduction of the now crippling Welfare State in 1948. Uncosted in any great detail and certainly not understood for its medium and long term implications,it was an economic millstone from which the UK has never recovered. Nobody would argue with the need for a safety net to ensure that the poorest in society were provided with a reasonable basic standard of living and good healthcare and education. The Welfare State however went far and astronomically expensively beyond that, providing for all in society, from top to bottom usually via inevitably inefficient state run monopoly suppliers.And this was at a time when the country, exhausted by two World Wars was exhaused and broke and needed every penny it could muster to rebuild its infrastructure and industry. Instead of using schemes such as the Marshall Plan and more recently the huge windfalls of the North Sea oil bonanza to do ,that the UK failed to seize the opportunity with the result that it has little or nothing of lasting value to show for the money that has passed through its national coffers. If the UK had red ringed the North Sea income for major long term national projects we could have had a wonderful infrastructure, schools and hospitals as memorials to our temporary geological good fortune. It didn't do that. Instead it continued to spend more on more on out of control state expenditure and welfare to all and social engineering while government and local authority payrolls ballooned with countless superflous and some almost laughably titled new jobs.
All this has given the coalition a wonderful opportunity to state clearly a new philosphy of a very different way of life, much less dependent on the state, much more self sufficient and ultimately with much lower (ideally straight rate,-it works) taxation and much more efficient and higher quality public services, competitively supplied to those who need them. It has in fact embarked on this but without the courage to lable it as a revolution rather than cuts and explain the whole deal and its advantages in simple terms. The label "The Big Society " just doesn't cut it. As result the coalition is losing the PR battle for what should be seen as a dynamic, essential and visionary new approach to life which will bring big long term dividends to us and our children. A new version of Alistair Campbell , less some of the features, is needed to get a grip on Government communication of the perfectly simple, logical and reasonable as is an understanding of how the man and woman in the street see things. Unfortunately, like Royalty, top level politicians particularly on the government side, quicky become isolated from reality and hearing what real people are saying. By the nature of the animal this affects the Conservative Party more than Labour or the Lib Dems. Very few, if any ,of the top tier sit in cafes, pubs, commuter trains and other places where they might hear "normal "people chatting, grunbling and worrying. They become isolated amongst their own kind, be they old Etonians or socialist party aristocracy. When cabinet members and their shadows use the NHS do they wait in A&E on plastic seats for 4 hours? When they want to go to Manchester by train on a Friday evening do they queue in the pens at Euston? It is unlikely. As result maybe they lose sight of the need to communicate, communicate, communicate with the electorate in straightforward, simple non spin terms? At the moment the coalition certainly seems to have a poor feel for bear traps which they should avoid. They don't have the right listening devices,- called people,-out there and feeding back reality to the stratified leadership. They are never going to win the sale of forrest argument against those who fear the loss of Squirrel Nutkin's home.They should have seen that and dismissed the idea as simply not worth it for the saving however good the real argument may be. The same goes for other perfectly good, sensible and even essential cuts. Properly packaged into a strong well explained philosophy of a real non welfare dependent society and they are saleable. The lable "The Big Society" is failing because it is too nebulous, weak and does not excite.
It's time for the coalition to get a grip on its message or risk five years of pain only to hand back the mended economy to Balls & Co (forget the other struggling Ed) to go on another binge of borrow and spend for which we and the next generation at least will pay an appalling price.
Sunday, 6 February 2011
BP Surprise?- Surely not.
BP seem to be expressing surprise that their new Russian partners, and others in Russia,- are proving troublesome from the start. Surely as a long standing global business in a bruising market the company can not have gone into the deal believing it was ever going to be an easy relationship?
As Russia sees it, BP, beaten up by Obama no less, is on the ropes and desparately needs the new deal. It is not a good starting point for negotiations and it is likely to be ruthlessly exploited with constant demands for renegotiation of points already understood to be agreed. No doubt other parts of the Russian establishment can provide feet out to trip or obstruct as and when opportune. That is business and if BP went into it with anything other than eyes wide open and steely resolve, very broad shoulders and a skin inches thick they will find life very stressful indeed.
Down the track, Russia Plc would like a seat on the BP Board as this would give them access to vast amounts of information on UK power and fuel policy,concerns and security. Interesting thought.
As Russia sees it, BP, beaten up by Obama no less, is on the ropes and desparately needs the new deal. It is not a good starting point for negotiations and it is likely to be ruthlessly exploited with constant demands for renegotiation of points already understood to be agreed. No doubt other parts of the Russian establishment can provide feet out to trip or obstruct as and when opportune. That is business and if BP went into it with anything other than eyes wide open and steely resolve, very broad shoulders and a skin inches thick they will find life very stressful indeed.
Down the track, Russia Plc would like a seat on the BP Board as this would give them access to vast amounts of information on UK power and fuel policy,concerns and security. Interesting thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)