Current Affairs | 2b Leadership and Diversity

Labour or Tory – This General Election?

Once you cut through all the fog and smoke produced by both parties, I believe there is a clear choice to be made by the voters.

Labour

Reduce the deficit more slowly.

Raise taxes

Maintain public spending.

Remain in Europe

Tory

Reduce the deficit as quickly as possible.

Reduce taxes

Reduce Public Spending significantly

Get out of Europe.

Create a Neo Liberal business culture.

So Labour appears to be moving left in line with Socialist principles and away from Blair’s Neo Liberal fudge when he tried to appear to be all things to all people in a naked pursuit of power.

The Tories are advocating a return to the right wing principles of Thatcher.

This all against a world which is more dangerous now than ever, increasing sectarian divisions becoming more apparent in our society and the need for a government of all the people and not just the few. A government that looks outward and not inwards, a government that supports the Rule of Law and good governance, a government that leads ethically and with integrity both individually and as a group.

The other parties are nothing more than a sideshow, which the voters take great delight in taunting the major parties of Labour and Tory into some response guided by nothing more than narrow societal interests such as immigration and fear of other.

They are not relevant to the major issues facing a future government.

How then to vote?

If you seek more equality, fairness and consistency in Health, Education, Local Government, Business and Foreign policy across the whole of society, then I suggest Labour will do that more significantly.

If you are happy to have less equality, fairness and consistency across those things, which are key to our entire well being, where those in the minority who have, either increase what they have or remain with what they have, then the Tories are for you.

This is clearly demonstrated today in Cameron’s speech to the Chambers of Commerce where he asked them to raise peoples wages which in the following interviews were roundly rejected by all those attending, saying leave wages to business and they expressed surprise that a Tory leader would even comment on wages to the business community.

Where the HSBC scandal rolls on and on (this one has more legs than most) and government chose to do nothing once they were told. Naturally the Tories deny they were told. Perhaps they should have asked, as everyone else knew about the industrial tax evasion by the UK rich. Government has denied a conspiracy of course, but how can we believe anything else when all those who have been involved in this criminal behavior are not prosecuted or even investigated, ostensibly it seems because they are rich, powerful and well known, vis a vis Savile, LIBOR etc.

This country is crying out for a leadership style which is open, honest, lacking in discrimination and providing good health services, education and opportunities to all our citizens irrespective of class, colour, creed or social background.

It seems to me that Labour although they get it wrong at times provide that, whereas the Tories blatantly only appeal to a minority of the electorate which the first past the post system is complicit in facilitating their grab of executive power.

We cannot afford to get it wrong, as the next 5 years are crucial to the national well being of everyone not just the chosen.

Posted February 10, 2015 Posted in Current Affairs, Equality and Inclusion, Leadership, Politics | Leave a response

“Free Speech?”

In light of the awful things, which have happened in France over the last week, it is worthwhile as a secular, humanist to say how abhorrent and inhumane these acts were. They are not acts of religious zeal but are acts of terror and criminality. They are designed to cause a reaction and not a proactive response. It is the proactive response which we as a society should be measuring and putting in place and we look to our institutional leaders for this.

Reactive behaviours are not what are required at the moment.

But let us examine first the call for “Free Speech”. The fact is we do not have free speech because this is always constrained by the law and the law states quite clearly that if our speech or actions incite hatred or violence then we are not permitted to say or act in accordance with how we wish to behave.

So people exercising their right to free speech also have a responsibility to stay within the law.

Free Speech is also not a part of a society, which allows institutions to withhold things from us through D notices and prevents lawful disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act as frequently, happens. Thousands stated “Je Suis Charlie” one man in France said something different on social media and was promptly arrested. Who then does “Free Speech” apply to? Just those we wish to hear?

I believe Tony Blair once said, “The worse thing I ever did was to allow the introduction of the Freedom of Information Act”. That one statement encapsulates what our political leaders really think about us the electorate who put them in power over us.

It is noteworthy that after each terrible terrorist event our political leaders decrease our freedoms through legislation. 9/11 in the USA and 7/7 in UK are all examples of increases in legislation, which impacted upon our civil liberties as individuals, and now once again, Cameron is proposing to legislate against social media, a free space area for individuals to share ideas.

The facts are, that there are about 3.3 million people in UK who follow Islam as a religion, the estimate is about 300 individuals are suspected by the security services of being involved in terrorist activity from that group.

So, 300 people are holding 63 million of UK citizens to ransom and subject to increasing loss of freedom and free speech and the reaction of our highly intellectual and experienced political leaders is more legislation against us the majority. Increased legislation means lazy legislative practitioners. We have ample laws to deal with this threat and so our protective services must work harder to protect us.

There was a security failure in France, it never needed more legislation, just better practice.

Posted January 15, 2015 Posted in Current Affairs, general, Politics | Leave a response

The “Right” Will Out

I saw Vince Cable the Business Secretary on Marr this morning and his vision of a majority Tory government next year is probably one of the most frightening visions of the future for my country I have ever encountered.

Having grown up in a country which has traditionally cared for all it’s citizens under either a historically reluctant patrician caring Tory government which recognised that to maintain power they needed to appease the poor or a left wing taxing, spending Labour government, life was assured for those of us who had little and the inability to earn little. Free education, a welfare safety net and free health service ensured that all received care irrespective of one’s place in society.

Fast forward to the “aspiring, hard working” Thatcher view of Britain and all of a sudden this changed and people caught up by the safety net became scroungers and cheats, feckless and lazy. This mantra infected the nouveau riche as well as the traditional middle classes of the public schools and paid for university places and private medicine. Now we hear exactly the same from Cameron and cronies.

What lies behind the Tory adage of “We are the party of the aspiring and hard working great British public?”

Simply put, the Tories want as small a government as possible. Less free health care, less free education, less benefits and all achieved by the cry to cut the deficit. This is a lie being sold to us as ethical and prudent government and hiding a basic Tory political philosophy which historically has been around since the first Tory minority government of Lord Derby and this is the first opportunity since then for them to radicalise our country in this way under the guise of prudence whilst blaming the excesses of previous Labour governments.

Let’s examine the effects of a future 2015 majority Tory government on what we know so far.

Smaller government means a smaller police service. Crime will rise. The police will only police high volume crime and Neighbourhood policing will suffer. Those with money will employ their own security and retreat behind gated communities as they now do in USA and are already probably doing in parts of the country now. The vulnerable will be serviced by an overstretched, underfunded police service and subject to the impact of much higher crime resulting in less security and safety for those who cannot afford private security. Two tier policing.

Immigration the great bogeyman of all our ills according to the Tory/Ukippers, will mean once we have withdrawn from Europe and bunkered down behind our traditional xenophobic channel barrier that the Mo Farahs and Amir Khans of this world will no longer be British and bring us such joy and pride in OUR country.

Health will become the privilege of the rich who can pay large sums for excellent health care which attracts the best clinicians and the lower tier free service will be less accessible, have less quality and leave the poorest and most vulnerable in a two tier health system, where the best drugs and procedures will be the privilege of the rich. Where if one is fat or smokes then you do not deserve the benefit of free healthcare. Two tier health.

Education is already suffering. 7% of the population achieving through their wealth, networks and private education and best universities all the plum positions in society in commerce, media, law, civil service and government. The few, governing the majority, telling us what we need and how to live our lives. As Winston Churchill once said, “Never have the few achieved so much”. Two tier education.

And on this bedrock the society we can expect is one where class and privilege once again determine your opportunities, your longevity, your lifetime income, and any aspirations you may have are in the hands of those with the power to give or withhold.

Utopian Britain? Well for some of us anyway, about 7% !!!!

Posted December 14, 2014 Posted in Current Affairs, Equality and Inclusion, Politics | Leave a response

Estranged Fatherhood

I saw a very interesting piece on the BBC News this morning which I felt had huge ramifications for society as a whole and which we maybe sliding into without any real thought or consideration for the long term effects on our societal culture.

Since 2003 the trend for women to choose parenthood through access to sperm held in a sperm bank is up and increasing. A new sperm bank has opened to encourage more UK men to donate altruistically as the sperm bank is so short of donors that they are having to use donors from as far afield as USA and Denmark.

One piece to camera was by a woman with two children, one by human reproduction and then one by IVF via a sperm bank when she decided to increase her family. She stated that she did not wish to be viewed as abnormal in choosing that route to parenthood and that as long as her children had good male role models their childhood and upbringing would not be impaired. She certainly appeared to have considerable material wealth and her children appeared to be well looked after, fed and clothed and happy. Both were under four years old and the youngest was about eighteen months old.

Any children produced in this way have access to a small amount of scant detail about their father when they are eighteen years old. This includes their name and likes and dislikes. It did not say whether this information included nationality, family background or any other relations the father may have.

What I find interesting is, what is society saying about fatherhood?

What is it saying about relationships and the creation of family?

Does this mean fatherhood is reduced to merely sperm donation?

As a father with four children, I played a role in how my children integrated into society and saw themselves as human beings. I helped when they were ill and comforted them in times of crisis. I helped them to form political and philosophical opinion of their own and how to manage difficult relationships and their emotions. As they grew older I coached them through their education both pastoral and academic and when they formed significant relationships of their own we spoke about the importance of trust and love as well as the compatibility in faith and no faith, bringing up children, education, career and money management. All the things, which give any relationship the best possible chance of success. I wonder if that is the real description of role modeling a relationship, which children as they grow within it recognise as a dynamic evolving thing, constantly changing and growing through, compromise, love, trust and ageing?

What does this say to a child about the gap they may feel eventually about their cultural identity, nationality and all the other important aspects that make us who we are and create our identity. We will always be the product of the human reproductive system. Maybe that is all we want for our children? I hope not.

Children leave home eventually, that is inevitable and what is left is the relationship, which nurtured them and helped them to become adults who care about other people and go on to live happy and fulfilling lives. It is the reference point in their lives around which they formulate everything that happens and which they can constantly refer back to. If those mothers or parents who choose this form of family creation believe that the answer to the inevitable questions from those children who then go on to become enquiring adults is; “I love you” and that should be enough, then I guess they maybe mistaken, because they have no way of letting this young adult know that their father also feels the same way about them and there is no way of filling the inevitable sense of loss.

Those parents who decided to create their family in this way will then be on their own. We cannot and should not hang on to our children forever, they have their own lives to lead.

I don’t see single parenthood by choice as abnormal or wrong because we all make choices in this life and that’s what we live with day-to-day. The children however do not have a choice but do have to live with the choices made by their parent.

However I do find it very sad for the children that they will not feel that holistic family environment and may even go on to adulthood to choose the same family role model that they experienced.

What in the long term will that mean to society?

Men are sperm donors whose only role is to donate sperm. What a sad world that will be.

Posted October 30, 2014 Posted in Current Affairs, Equality and Inclusion | Leave a response

The Blair-Bush Leadership Legacy

As a baby boomer and now of the third age, I look back fondly on the certainties that the world presented in terms of employment, peace and security for nations and the certainty that this would all go on forever due to a capitalist system which was clearly defined and able to assure me of my place in the world and others like me and that we could rest assured that growth would continue and our children and grandchildren could be certain of a good and productive life in the future.

I served for much of my time in the Army maintaining this status quo in West Germany, as it was at the time, defending a way of life that others had fought for in two World Wars and letting the Soviet bloc know in no uncertain terms that should they wish to force their political belief on us in the West, there would be consequences which may destroy us all, but we were willing to do this, rather than be placed under the yoke of a political system which was alien and completely unacceptable to all we had fought and died for previously.

These were dangerous, but in a way the most productive and peaceful times for many generations.

Fast forward to our world today and the threat of a terrorist group masquerading under the banner of a peaceful religion and using literalism to set up a state or caliphate of hate and terror, a politically reinvigorated Russia, threatening a sovereign state of Ukraine with clear intentions to expand Russian borders into the previously dominant and malevolent Soviet bloc, the world unable or unwilling to confront a deadly Ebola virus which threatens large swathes of the continent of Africa. Israel’s hateful persecution of the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank and a failed 10-year military campaign in Afghanistan. Surely we are in the most dangerous times for several generations and the world’s leaders seem immobile and frozen into inaction, staring into an abyss and stunned into inaction by the enormity of the dangers confronting them.

Why has this come about?

I believe the state of the world today can be laid squarely at the feet of Blair and Bush. They created the circumstances which, in a war torn Iraq, permitted the rise of various competing factions smashing the country apart because of the complete lack of a post operational plan to bring a political solution to a country manufactured by the British and the French decades ago. These groups then metamorphosed and coalesced, changing and spreading so quickly across the region that the West ended up chasing shadows when determining who they were dealing with and whether they were elsewhere in the world or frighteningly in our own back yard.

Meanwhile Putin seized his chance and sensing the hesitancy of the West’s political elite and public’s tiredness of war emphasised by the lack of action in Syria (irrespective of whether it would have been right or wrong at the time) manufactured a political incident, which is an age-old ruse to expand a country’s borders to “rescue” and invade the Ukraine.

So the West is now confronted by every military persons’ nightmare, a war on two fronts which historically has been the nemesis for many expansionist leaders including most notably, Hitler and Napoleon.

What are we to do?

It is clear to me that this situation is not the sole responsibility of individual nation states, we are past nationalist self interest and even though Britain and America bear a huge responsibility for what has happened, these are problems, which at last may bring the world together whatever the boundaries of religion, faith, ethnicity or nationhood. This is a time for co-operation both politically and militarily if necessary to destroy a terrorist infant state and rein in the egotistical megalomania of a dangerous rogue leader.

Every leader in the world must lay aside personal interest and recognise the ethics of acting cohesively as a unit to bring to heel the biggest threat to mankind since 1939, if that threat ever really went away.

It is now time for the United Nations to accept a world role, remove the veto from the Security Council permanent members and deal globally on a democratic basis with the dangers confronting the world today, whether that is security, health, or any of the other destabilising influences that confront us in the future.

In summary, as long as nation states have no higher authority to answer to, they will continue to pursue their own political ends at the expense of other nation states.

The UN could, given the authority, legislate against the Caliphate, Russian expansionist actions, coalesce world health authorities to deal with the Ebola outbreak and provide a genuine forum to arbitrate on international disputes and grievances, let’s give it a try before it’s too late.

Posted September 7, 2014 Posted in Current Affairs, Leadership, Politics | Leave a response

The Israeli and Palestinian Question

Once again this has resulted in conflict and once again the world wrings it’s hands and does very little except become entrenched in one camp or the other. This is manifested in statements such as “ The Israelis have a right to defend themselves against rocket attacks from within Gaza” and the counter statement of “ The Israelis must end the blockade of Gaza” and there appears to be no common ground between either of those statements and they are both right when viewed in isolation.

The Israelis very cleverly will not speak about anything other than: –

Rocket attacks
Tunnels

Accepting no responsibility for turning Gaza into a large concentration camp and when pressed cite the reasoning for this stance as the Holocaust, which did happen and was horrendously inhuman. Genocide is inhuman and that includes all groups who suffer it and in whatever numbers. Any decent human being would agree with that statement I am sure. The Israelis must recognise the consequences of their actions.

The Huffington Post has exacerbated this situation just by defining their current on line discussion as:-

Pro – Israeli or Pro – Palestinian

The whole tone of those words is unhelpful and inciting. However they are not alone and it allows both sides to determine the righteousness of their cause.

The historic significance of the UK in creating this problem is well known and there is no point in reminding everyone of the previous duplicity of the British government to both Israelis and Palestinians after the Second World War. Unfortunately the UK government is no position to right this wrong at this late stage, lacking the power or credibility internationally to play any effective role in a resolution. It also begs the question who ever appointed Blair to preside over the Middle East peace initiative when I suggest that he was one of the biggest players to have a hand in causing these problems. Yet he continues to expound the righteousness of his actions years after the immense and continuing loss of life in the region. Unbelievable!

But let us explore the current situation.

Any sovereign nation may fight a “Just War” and the common principles of the justice of war are universally known as “Jus ad Bellum” and are held to be:-

Having just cause.
Being declared by a proper authority
Possessing the right intention.
Having a reasonable chance of success.
The end being proportional to the means.

By adhering to these principles, a sovereign nation’s right to wage a “Just War” will always be upheld. Where the Israelis compromise this right is by prosecuting a “Just War” in an Unjust way. Unlimited and Absolute war is counter-productive to the end result sought in a “Just War” and should moral conditions not be present this will and is resulting as we have seen historically in this conflict, an endless war of retribution and revenge over generations.

Clearly the 2 State solution is the only long-term resolution to this intractable problem, which will require the Israelis to take a leap of faith in not using their own people to secure and buffer their borders through the use of settlements on the West Bank or enclosing a whole region such as Gaza in a virtual prison, from where the inhabitants are so helpless that they are willing to die to achieve any dignified Human Rights at all. If the Israelis continue to create hopelessness in the minds of the Palestinians in Gaza, then they cannot complain if they are attacked. There is no other course of action for the imprisoned people and the continuous war will create more and more warriors to the cause of Palestinian freedom not just in Gaza.

This then leads me onto the turn of events at home in UK where Baroness Warsi has resigned from the cabinet over the “indefensible position of the Government over Gaza”. Irrespective of her reasons, which I believe are admirable, she has now realised the paucity of power that people in this country from a BME heritage have, even at the level of government, which she currently enjoys. She was patronised into believing that she was accepted into the inner coterie of the Private school, Oxbridge educated elite who dominate all aspects of our society today and a dawn of realisation that, “Yes! I really am brown, a woman from the working class and Muslim and that no matter how bright, gifted and humane I am, in reality the doors of power are closed to me.”

That is the reality of being a BME person in UK today. This is clearly evidenced in all the statistics, which are available in both the Public Services and Business today.

If she was really principled “crossbenching” is the only political solution for her, because it is clear that the Tory party will never really take BME people to it’s heart.

The reality of politics today is the power of business to drive government policy, hence the government stated policy on Gaza from our Prime Minister’s own mouth is “The right of the Israelis to defend themselves against rocket attacks” whilst behind the scenes the lucrative business deals with the Israeli government and companies proliferate and more and more donors from a UK Pro Israeli business lobby throw money at the Tories to achieve their ends. Once again, of course the Lib Dems throw their “considerable” political weight behind the Palestinian cause once they believe the opportunity is right, thus losing all credibility in the eyes of the public and showing themselves once again to be the most disingenuous politicians of the whole phalanx of our representatives in “The Mother of all Parliaments” by their excruciating timing and lack of guts to have done so before.

The only solution to not just the Israeli v Palestinian problem but also the rest of the Middle East is Secular and Humanist. Therefore all negotiations will have the most chance of success if:-

There is no reference to religion or faith.
There is no reference to history as it cannot be changed.
Accept the autonomous State solution.

Build consensus around the following principles:-

Safety and Security- applying this principle to all aspects of the negotiations means asking in response to any question. “How can we do this and provide safety and security for all our people?
Human Rights- “How can we provide these to all our people in these circumstances?
Autonomy- How can we provide autonomous government, trade and international representation to all people willing to negotiate a solution?

Lastly, be strong enough as an international community to punish those who transgress the rule of international law through all lawful means.

Posted August 12, 2014 Posted in Current Affairs, Equality and Inclusion, Leadership, Politics | Leave a response

So what, is all this furore about Diversity anyway?

Equality Legislation has been with us now for over 40 years and was born on the back of racial riots and civil unrest unseen on that scale before. It stemmed from large-scale visible immigration and the fears of an indigenous population about jobs, housing and access to public services. Sound familiar? Not only 40 years ago but happening now in our country, fuelled once again by xenophobia and the fear of “other”. Whoever and whatever “other” may be.

A quick snapshot of the newspapers over the last couple of weeks has seen evidence or scaremongering, depending on your point of view, of epic proportions.

Sol Campbell an eminent footballer drawing a conclusion that because he is black he never attained the highest footballing position in the land of his birth, team captain for his country. Easy to dispute if one is of a mind to deconstruct his footballing ability perhaps and ignore his colour.

The Army is currently managing up to 200 alleged sex crimes including the high profile coroners verdict of the bullying of an RMP female Corporal who alleged rape and was subsequently hounded to her death by her own hands by her comrades in arms.

Female Ministers in government, being allocated smaller offices than their male counterparts. Insignificant it may seem, unless of course you are one of those women.

Unequal pay for women, stifling the productivity of our business world currently emerging from deep recession.

Mr Farage of UKIP insisting that our communities are unrecognisable and are not the sorts of places fit to be handed on to our children and grandchildren.

Dominic Grieve the Attorney General stating openly in print and on the ITV that people of Pakistani heritage in politics are endemically corrupt (He later apologised when taken to task by the media and other commentators)

Finally the poster campaign in racially sensitive areas of London encouraging people to go home if they have overstayed on their visas.

Looking further afield, Anti-Gay legislation in Russia and Uganda demonising people for no reason other than their sexual orientation.

When did it recently become so acceptable 40 years after the legislation spanning National, European and International boundaries to treat everyone with respect and dignity, to now generate fear and loathing of others based only their difference from others, even at the highest levels of our society, with such impunity.

When did Diversity become such a dirty word that diminishes its importance in business and public service with the terms “ political correctness gone mad”, “What about my Human Rights” or “it’s that lot again”!

The Diversity training industry has a lot to answer for in this respect, having in the past provided transactional training, which made people fearful of what to say and do and without encouraging an emotionally intelligent approach to the subject of managing difference.

We are all different and it is no more acceptable to use any language or behaviour, which may offend or cause hurt to others based only their difference, by anyone.

There is a real business case for Diversity in all parts of society and these benefits have been well researched and documented. Difference is not just about the legislative “protected characteristics” but also education, socio-economic background and all the other factors that make us who we are. It is time to explore them in a transformational way in all walks of life and this I would like to do in these articles. This is not about telling people how they should behave or what to say but it is about understanding, accepting others for the skills and qualities that they bring to society and eradicating inequality and injustice. People from Minority Groups almost certainly did not ask to belong to those groups but they do ask for respect, dignity and to be treated fairly by the society in which they live.

That is a Leadership imperative, not only a question of difference and I believe that the sooner we mainstream diversity into the leadership paradigm the sooner we as individuals, in our teams and organisations’ will genuinely embrace difference and begin to fully recognise the benefits that different people can bring.

Society is changing, sometimes at a pace we find difficult to fathom but to ignore it, is to atrophy as a society. Leading in change management principles is no different whatever the change or rate of it. So to formulate a more rounded debate and to create a greater awareness of the subject, maybe that is where the issue of Diversity should be firmly placed.

Posted March 27, 2014 Posted in Current Affairs, Equality and Inclusion, general, Leadership | Leave a response

Democracy Defined – Goose or Gander?

There is a great deal of controversy once again about the rights and wrongs of workers rights of withdrawal of their labour, particularly in essential services such as transport et al. This has been prompted by the bellicose mutterings of both Bob Crowe and various high profile politicians such as Boris Johnson the Mayor of London and even the Prime Minister David Cameron. Posturing in terms of re-election? Possibly, but most definitely the politics and rhetoric of confrontation which has plagued British society for decades and was heightened under the patronage of Thatcher with disastrous results, the likes of which we are still living with in many areas of the country. Both politicians and the Trade Union hierarchy are to blame.

If we go right back to the beginnings of Trade Unionism, the basic tenet has always been that the only action by trade union members which can result in a clear indication of dissatisfaction at working terms and conditions is the right of individuals to withdraw their labour. This right is inalienable.

How the right is exercised should be democratically open to scrutiny by all.

The old intimidatory “show of hands” is not acceptable in a democratic organisation and it is quite right that the process should be both private and anonymised, so that individuals can exercise their right according to their individual conscience. This is a fundamental of any democratic society.

However, the “first past the post” principle is probably the current and most effective administrative means of ensuring the democratic right of all is heard. Our whole democratic system rests on this principle and it seems to be the best we have without making voting mandatory and pursuing the law for those who choose not to vote.

The average turnout at all general elections has fallen from a high of over 84% after the Second World War to less than 66% at the last election.

Only 2/3rds of people who have the vote use it.

This current government was elected on 36% of the national vote.

Politicians who are perfectly happy to form a government on that basis can therefore hardly decry a Trade Union membership who elects to go on strike using the same voting principle. All members are eligible to vote and if they choose not to then that is “Democracy” in action.

It is irrelevant what industry or Public Service or the effect on the “essential service”. What is important is the respect for the democratic process.

Politicians tinker with this at their peril and unless we can find a better way to decide on governments, or actions of organisations, leave well alone is my advice.

Of course that does not answer the extremely important question of what is the role of the Trade Unions and Government in the country’s economy and the smooth running of it?

Is it enough for the free market to dominate or should people who create the wealth for others have a say in their role in it?

I believe both can co-exist in a free and democratic society.

The role of a Trade Union is to secure the working terms and conditions of all it’s members and the role of government is to ensure that business has an environment in which to flourish and create prosperity for all whilst also safeguarding all citizens not just those who voted to put them into power. The business of government and the Trade Unions is therefore congruent as if either destroys one or the other, neither can flourish.

It is therefore the duty of both government and trade unions to tackle poverty

and injustice where it exists.

Zero hours contracts are one of the biggest blights on society at the moment and neither trades unions nor government seem to recognise the injustices for employed people created by this form of employment.

To list just a few: –

Employment hours only at the subjective choice of those employing others
No employer sick pay
No employer pension rights
Lack of access to company or state grievance procedures

The knock on effect is then: –

No access to mortgages or loans due to a lack of demonstrable income
No access to low rent accommodation as none is now provided by Local Authorities
Use of loansharking with exorbitant interest rates
A minimum wage not a living wage

In short the pay gap widens, the poor become poorer and we stand by whilst our society becomes more unequal as those in poverty both in and out of work are demonised as scroungers and lazy with little or no aspiration to change.

The job of government and trades unions is to tackle this not to pursue their own political agendas.

Posted February 23, 2014 Posted in Current Affairs, Equality and Inclusion | Leave a response

Nelson Mandela

It is enough nowadays for any writer to write that name to conjure up in peoples minds all that is good. Now that he has passed away, the great and the good in places all over the world are espousing what he represents, however I note they all use adjectives in their eulogies to him and I believe he was much more than that, I believe that what he did best, describes his achievements. He was a very active leader in the world and it was the things he did that define him, not what may appear sometimes to be trite adjectives of his undoubted and many qualities, but his living legacy that he leaves with us all, individually, collectively and historically.

His book “Long Walk to Freedom” should be on every leaders list and throw out the rest, as the messages he gives us in this book will stand the test of time forever and all other theories of leadership, which are constantly regurgitated and sold to us as new, pale into insignificance compared to his simple philosophy of truth and compassion. He was a man of vision, who communicated his vision, simply and clearly to friends and foes alike, with equanimity and conviction that burned so brightly, none could afford to ignore it.So much so that he inspired others to strive for the common goals that he held so dear.

He believed passionately in equality, he never sought celebrity and remained a humble man all his life. In truth there are few to compare except perhaps Mahatma Ghandi and Mother Teresa. He is in exalted company, but what of the man and his achievements. He will say that he only showed the way, others achieved and yet he was the spark that lit the fire and turned it into the largest conflagration to blow away the last vestiges of one of the most evil regimes in the world. This he did without an ounce of bitterness, imbuing others with truth and reconciliation and demonstrating to them that revenge is neither a “dish best served cold” nor is it to be enjoyed, as this will always be at the expense of others.

Not all people agreed with the methods to achieve the ends on his behalf, and one particular leader would not participate or support sanctions or boycotts and before Margaret Thatcher passed away I often wonder if she considered the power of simple honest persuasion as so aptly demonstrated by Mr Mandela.

So what is his legacy ?

It is South Africa, the rainbow nation, but more than that, it is a philosophy for all people. It is one of Utilitarianism, that neither greed nor personal gain are the most important things in how we live our lives, but others. The human being no matter what colour, creed, size, shape, religion, class, education or disability matters beyond all else.

It is that individuals can make a difference, no matter what the obstacles that confront us or the power of the executive . Every individual has the power to make the smallest of dents in wrongdoing to such a degree that eventually the dam of truth and justice will burst forth and cleanse the wrongs and right the rights, bringing light into darkness.

Nelson Mandela was undoubtedly a great man and we will hear many eulogies and praise heaped upon him in the weeks and months and years to come. None of them will be enough, so is it not better just to recognise that and also to realise that in this particular instance words do not count or mean enough.

Long Live Nelson Mandela.

Posted December 6, 2013 Posted in Current Affairs, Equality and Inclusion, Leadership, Politics | Leave a response

Is This a Case of Racism or not?

Dominic Grieve the Attorney General has instigated a debate about corruption in public life, naming and shaming specifically the Pakistani community as one section of our society who pose a threat to the well being of our representative democracy by their cultural affinity to corruption in their own country, which has been imported by “them” to the UK.

I guess this raises several points of interest centred mainly on his lack of overwhelming evidence. Something I thought an Attorney General might feel it incumbent upon him to provide when making such a statement. Interestingly, the points of evidence for his assertions are not answered directly by Mr Grieve in either his Telegraph interview or the ITV news item. He merely makes this bold statement.

Pakistani culture is endemically corrupt and that’s why we see this replicated in Britain.

There is no evidence provided other than isolated cases of election corruption, highlighted as being in communities with large Pakistani communities and therefore I (The Attorney General) can now make a stereotypical, limited assumption about all Pakistanis in this country.

I work in many countries around the world in Rule of Law and Governance and have had many conversations with colleagues who decry the fact that the work they do is made more difficult by the corruption in the countries we work in. This has happened in South America, Africa, The Caribbean, The Far East, The Middle East and other places including Eastern Europe. Please note, none of my colleagues have alluded to or addressed the corruption in British society, it always seems to be “Johnny Foreigner”.

Dominic Grieve has led a privileged life and inexorably risen through the party ranks. This may or may not be due to his public school upbringing, Oxbridge education and high society connections. I will leave you to decide whether he is really in touch with mainstream British society at all levels, cultures, nationalities and religions.

The questions for me are

“What does he know of ‘endemic corruption’ in Pakistan?”

“What does he know of the Pakistani community in UK”

Is he saying that second, third and fourth generations of British Pakistanis are slavishly following their forefathers who originally came to Britain for a better life in replicating their own endemically corrupt way of life back in the old country and that this represents a terrible threat to the traditionally whiter than white approach of native Britons to conducting their affairs in public office.

Has he so recently forgotten?

MP’s expenses
The LIBOR scandal
The Leveson enquiry
The Iraq Dossier

Do I need to go on? This may come as a surprise to you Mr Grieve but people are corrupt, no matter what their colour, culture, nationality or class. People in public life often fall short of the standards required of them by us the electorate. I would ask you to look back on your life and ask yourself this question.

“Have you ever put your self interest before your personal ethics?”

I think we all know what the answer probably is.

I believe that people, whoever they are and whatever their backgrounds are intrinsically honest and truthful. Where they are not, the law is there to deal with that minority, impartially and fairly, irrespective of their personal characteristics. As the Attorney General and a public servant I expect the same from you and in your position, you have the opportunity to enhance the law or not.

In making these statements you have created distrust, fear and loathing of others based on their community characteristics.

As a Minister, you have an obligation to lead all parts of the society and not to single out one section for approbation and admonishment. You have set back the integration agenda in one fell, crass swoop by 10-15 years.

Recently, one of your own party members highlighted how alienated people generally feel from your party. A party led by a group of societal elite, out of touch with the ordinary living and working lives of the electorate. You have compounded that tenfold by this unfeeling and ill thought out uttering.

Your party and you may well feel the backlash of this in 2015.

Since writing this article I see that Dominic Grieve has apologised. I am sure that must make everything OK now?

Posted November 23, 2013 Posted in Current Affairs, Equality and Inclusion, Politics | Leave a response

Blog

Categories

Previous Posts