blog

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

Be the Change that You wish to see in the World

This famous quote by Mahatma Gandhi can be both simple and difficult to interpret which I am sure is his intent. If you read his autobiography which is subtitled “OR The story of my experiments with the truth” I believe he is asking us not to look to others to make sense of the world but to look inside and ask ourselves why we see the world as an individual in the way we do and also then to extrapolate as to how our actions which are the result of how we see the world then impact upon others.

Diversity (I really now dislike that word and the toxic connotations it can hold for me and so I will furthermore describe diversity as “managing difference” which is inclusive of all), I believe starts with how we individually relate to the world and specifically to other people.

I believe there is both a moral and business case to managing difference well. Peter Singer in his book Practical Ethics uses a wonderful model to describe equality not as treating people equally but according to their “equal consideration of interests”. He argues that it is right and proper to treat people according to their interests and not based on their characteristics.

Take this example from his book.

“Take a relatively straightforward example of an interest, the interest in having physical pain relieved. Imagine that after an earthquake I come across two victims, Person A with a crushed leg, in agony, and Person B with a gashed thigh, in slight pain. I have only two shots of morphine left. Equal treatment would suggest that I give one to each injured person, but one shot would not do much to relieve the pain of the Person A with the crushed leg.”

I use this example in all the leadership (for me this includes managing difference) training and coaching that I currently do and the results are intuitively reassuring in that the majority of participants give more of the morphine to the person with the crushed leg. The result is not skewed by culture, nationality, religion or any other factor. When difference is described philosophically in this way people understand that it is perfectly acceptable to extend this principle to certain groups and then to give those groups more resources than others because of the disproportionate disadvantage incurred by belonging to that group.

This is I believe a fundamental principle in understanding how we as individuals view and relate to the world. What comes from this, is an acceptance that “other” is not something to be feared or viewed with distrust but to be understood and related to, whatever and whoever the “other’ maybe.

It is also very interesting that having established this principle with the participants, it is possible to widen the discussion even further by introducing the protected characteristics defined by the law and ask people “So would your decision change if: –

Person B was a member of your family?
Person A was old and Person B was a child?
Person A was disabled and Person B were able bodied?

And so on and so forth adding more and more philosophical conundrums to the initial question.

If we accept that it is fair, based on this example to give differently to different groups based on their ‘Equal Consideration of Interests” whether as an individual or as a group, then we begin to understand that managing difference cannot be based on trite political straplines such as

Everyone on benefits is a scrounger

All rich people are tax dodgers

Any other stereotype

Because we then reduce everyone to the lowest common denominator that fits our view of the world and it will almost certainly be at fault. Even if it does make us feel more secure and sure of our place in the world.

This can be distinctly uncomfortable for us because it challenges our established view of the world as we see it. But isn’t that the point of how we live our lives? To constantly challenge ourselves and where necessary others, in order, to develop a more rounded view of the world and others in it.

This will be the subject of my next blog.

“Why do we see the world, the way we do and what is the impact on our behavior?”

Posted May 10, 2014 Posted in general | 2 Responses

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

Faith, Is it divisive or does it help integration in our society?

Introduction.

I only really concerned myself with this vexing question as a result of a recent debate on the TV which was held in East London, where the audience comprised solely of women, the majority of them wearing the Niqab face covering. One of the questions which I asked myself even though I wasn’t in the audience and present at the studio was:- ” Why is it that I felt uncomfortable when confronted by so many people wearing the niqab, as in this audience and yet when I work in the Middle East and other Islamic countries, which I often do, I never feel uncomfortable?” From this question I began to question my primary position which is always that as far as I am concerned people can wear whatever they like and I also respect and accept their fundamental human right to do so. This is an inalienable right of all people in a free society and one which is governed by the democratic process and the National, European and International law.

So far so good. So why my differing feelings in two very different environments?

Culture

Culture is a word bandied about to describe many different things and it became clear to me that I also used it in that way without any really deep understanding of the importance it holds for people and how difficult it is for them to describe their feelings about it. This then caused me to question further my cultural feelings and compare them to those of others in our society.This is in fact the way individuals see the world and all that they hold dear and also judge to be contrary to the way they see others.It is held deep within us all as people to judge others on their dress, religion, ethics, education, socio-economic position in society, colour of their skin, age and all the other factors which go together to make us individual human beings. No one factor is indivisible from the rest when making these judgements about others and our subsequent actions towards them based on these judgements that we make.

It matters not that the Quoran makes no mention of this form of dress but only states that all people, men and women, should dress modestly in keeping with the philosophy of most of the other major religions. It has always interested me as to why this form of dress only applies to women given the advice given in the Quoran and how would we feel if men also dressed in this way. I believe that deep in the British cultural psyche we tend to associate facial coverings historically with banditry and criminal actions and maybe that also gets in the way of rational discussion of this subject. Culturally the niqab form of dress has become accepted for many reasons, which may allude to the dominance of men in some societies and has been misinterpreted from the writings of men across all the Abrahamic religions, that certain forms of dress are more acceptable than others.Dress codes can be used to conform, to be different, to exercise power or as an expression of self. Why should it matter what an individual chooses to wear?

However it clearly does, as seen by the widely differing views expressed by both sides in the debate. Differing views held strongly by both Muslims and people of other faiths both for and against the wearing of this form of dress. One country which answered this question most clearly was an Islamic state which separated the state from the national religion. Ataturk the reforming leader of Turkey, took the momentous decision to secularise Turkey because he saw the future of his country lay with both the East and the West and Turkish progress should not be complicated or hindered by the individuals right of religious practice. He also ensured the recognition and equality of all other faiths. Perhaps he was the man of not just his times but also of today and had great vision and courage and from whom we all have a lot to learn.There is no doubt in my mind that British culture is predicated on the fact that human discourse can only be successfully enjoined if people can see facial expressions. Not just this alone, but in all my learning, training and coaching with people across all walks of life, communication is not just what is said, but also the entirety of non-verbal communication which statistically comprises up to 70% of successful human intercourse.

Difference

And so why my differing feelings in different cultures about the same thing?

In discussing this issue with people who I both trust and whose opinions matter to me, there seemed to be some anecdotal consensus that like me they felt uncomfortable but were not able to articulate fully what the uncomfortableness was, without appearing to be racist.Interestingly this was across the cultural divides which are now prevalent in British society. In that statement lies the nub of the argument. I suspect that British society is now so multicultural and that multiculturalness is legislated for so specifically in order that individuals do not suffer as a result of their difference, that the discussion is polarised immediately by either side, as happened once again in the TV debate. Resulting in a lack of genuine exchange of views to bring about some understanding.

So let me pose two rhetorical questions for your consideration. “Would it be acceptable for a British parliament to have an MP dressed in a niqab?”. More importantly “What is the likelihood of a person wearing a niqab being elected to parliament or even becoming Prime Minister?”

I believe this is an acid test and rationalises British culture into a catalyst. Because if the answer is No, several issues come to the fore. Does that mean the niqab is an obstacle to progress and advancement for women who choose to wear it? Does the niqab emphasise difference and the isolation for the people who choose to wear it? I believe it may do on both counts and it is not enough to say that that is just a reflection of a racist society as some may do, but to try to resolve how a persons free choice to wear whatever they wish can result in a lack of equality and opportunity.

Private v Public

I have worked for several years with a Dr Olu Ogunsakin, a most learned man who has addressed himself to these prickly issues of managing difference over many years with both courage and common sense. He uses a model of integration, which I now use in all my work in the Managing Difference arena that talks about the role of society in the individuals’ private domain and the role of the individual in the public domain. I find his model most useful to explain integration as opposed to assimilation. He prescribes that the role of government is to protect the individuals right to express themselves in language, customs, dress, religion or no faith in their private domain but also to open the doors of equality and opportunity into public life of the Law, Medicine, Politics, Education and all the other public institutions to all citizens of our country. I would add a responsibility on the part of individuals to respect the public culture whilst working in the public domain. The French felt it necessary to legislate in respect of this form of dress in order to resolve the question for them. I believe that they have used a blunt instrument which does not uphold the rule of law, specifically the Human Rights Act which is a benchmark of the reasonableness of any democratic society. The resulting French legislation also chooses one form of faith over another by linking state to religion as we do, which is inherently flawed in my opinion.

Conclusion.

Leadership, as stated before in previous blogs is about vision, courage, authenticity and consistency and so perhaps now is the time in our land of many faiths ( 33 million Christians, 3 million Muslims, Sikhs, Jews and others and perhaps most importantly 14.5 million non- believers in any faith at the last census) for our leaders to take the initiative and sever the link between faith and state. Is it really necessary that the Queen maintains her combined role as Head of State with Head of Church? Is it really necessary that we place the clergy in the House of Lords? Do you believe that Prince George’s christening should be a public or private affair and an individuals choice of faith or not, is a private matter? The problem we face, as did the French is that any legislation in this matter will be used by many sides to emphasise the primacy or not of their particular faith. Sever that link and and we sever the contradiction which causes such hatred and ill feeling. No one faith is better than another, no one person is better than another and no one culture is better than another.

I believe that a secular state is more likely to be able to tread the difficult path of creating opportunity and equality for all its citizens and help all to feel included. So, to conclude, all people should feel comfortable to dress how they choose until working in or entering a public domain where the cultural norm is to enter into discourse with others without hiding from others any of the means of communication which this culture holds to be dear.I am not advocating how secularism should be implemented, merely providing a start point for others in positions of influence to change things.It may however mean a statement about dress in the public institutions such as, Schools, Universities, Courts, Public Service offices, Hospitals and all places where the public are served or treated as customers.

Summary

I recognise this subject is both controversial and emotive however, I am firmly in the integrationist camp and believe that :

1. A secular state would meet the needs and expectations of all our people.

2. Reduce the angst for those living and working in the public domain whilst safeguarding freedom of expression in the private domain

3. Speed up integration in society.

4. Provide equality and recognition to all faiths and the expression of faith.

Posted October 28, 2013 Posted in general | Leave a response

The Political Party Conference Season- An Indication of the Future?

The political parties conference season is now behind us and the dust has settled and our politicians are firmly re-esconced in the Palace of Westminster baiting each other across the narrow front bench divide. Reshuffles have been done and the political landscape for the future is becoming clearer as battle lines for the General Election in 2015 are drawn and the party political leaders articulate the things that they believe we will vote for in two years time. “A week is a long time in politics” as once famously said by Harold Wilson, clearly is not something on the radar of our current crop of wannabe statesmen (mainly).

So let’s examine exactly what in leadership terms the protaganists are offering us.

The Conservatives are lurching further to the right against a backdrop of threats from the UKippers (smoked in a rather smelly shed and recommended by the doctor as full of goodness?). Get rid of the Human Rights Act at the same time as wooing, like some kind of 17^th Century courtesan the vilest Human Rights regime in the world at the moment, purely to entice the great mammon to our economically bereft shores. China executes more people in the world than any other country. Oh and by the way let’s make sure we entice all those high spending Chinese tourists to UK by easing those awful visa restrictions which currently exclude all those deserving people around the world but who cannot offer so much as a “sous” in money for our deserving economy.

We shall also be able to buy our own houses, which every “hard working family” deserves, as the Government promise to help us to do so. Never mind the inevitable housing bubble, which may ensue as long as they get elected and let’s not worry about the fact that lot’s and lot’s of people are working zero hours contracts and are also hard working, but will never get a mortgage anyway because who in their right mind is going to lend to someone who cannot possibly demonstrate the ability to pay off the loan. Whilst of course never mentioning the fact that rented property is completely unattainable due to the dearth of council properties, as they have now almost all been sold and fallen into the hands of greedy developers and private landlords. So once again encapsulated in these two current policies we see again the Thatcherist ( It was no coincidence that she was mentioned so many times ) influence of “If you can’t manage yourself it is not the role of government to help”. That’s without examining the dearth of women, black people and others from diverse backgrounds, which the Conservatives not only consistently fail to attract but seem, not bothered in attracting. They portray a rather homogenous, narrow middle class interest.

The Lib Dems offer no consistent political view except to ride on the coattails of the big beasts and hope to do nothing other than appear to be ostensibly in power and on the front benches. They are a spent and vacuous force through which most people can hear the ominous chill political wind blowing through their leadership that augurs a long spell in the political wilderness. The moral is, if you consistently lie to the electorate, it really is not enough to “You Tube” a trite rap melody saying how sorry you are. We will never believe you again.

Then of course there is Labour. Who are they and what do they represent?

I know what they used to represent but what is it now. Why does the leadership assume that a huge swathe of middle class people do not want the same justice, equality and fairness in society that the majority all want. Take education. Free schools are nothing more than a “vanity” and now according to the same person(Hunt) “we will support good free schools and the setting up of a free school where needed” A free school is nothing more than a taxpayer funded public school as witnessed by a quote to Burbalsinghe who recently implemented a new free school. A parent said to her, “ I was so worried that I would not have the money to send my child to public school and then you came to us like an angel from heaven” Ed, a good school is a good school, do not fall into the trap that if schools are not good then we must set up an alternative. Deal with the underperformance and make sure that all children get the same opportunities, which is your job in government. Let me assure you that if state schools were excellent there would be a lot less public schools.

This is just one example of your prevarication and obfuscation, we the electorate and genuine centre socialists do not know what you stand for at the moment. Tell us clearly how you will reduce inequality; bring fairness to society whilst at the same time ensuring you will never repeat the economic mistakes of the past. There is one certainty in the next election, and it is, that the economy will win or lose it for you.

To quote someone who never followed her own doorstep utterings “Where there is discord, may we bring harmony. Where there is error, may we bring truth. Where there is doubt, may we bring faith and where there is despair, may we bring hope’

Shouldn’t this be the role of all our political leaders?

So what are the leadership qualities that we look for in our leaders?

Authenticity and consistency are fundamental along with vision, ethics, a clear direction and the ability to communicate these ideas across the whole electorate.

But most of all relate to us as people.

Posted October 15, 2013 Posted in Current Affairs, Leadership, Politics | Leave a response

Syria-To Intervene?

When will we ever learn? What have we learnt over the last 20 years having intervened illegally in Iraq and slogged away in Afghanistan for what seems to be ostensibly little gain. Have we reduced the threat of terrorism in the West or increased it as a result of our actions? The USA has never been particularly renowned for its measured foreign policy but we in Britain have long prided ourselves on our ability to manoeuvre diplomatically through the pitfalls of world politics and find the best solution for us, which is actually the whole raison d’etre of the formulation of foreign policy and the subsequent action of our government. However for too long we have tied ourselves through successive governments of differing political hues to the coat tails of USA interests. How does this benefit the UK and our citizens? Because if it doesn’t should we be continuing to do it just through a false sense of loyalty and how much does the USA consider the UK when formulating policy for their foreign interests? There is a history very often obscured by the rhetoric of the USA’s involvement in wars and conflicts, which ignores their continuing isolationist stance unless it suits their interest.

The statement is that “the use of chemical weapons crosses a red line”
Obama and Cameron are speaking to each other to decide on a course of action and military intervention is not ruled out, parliament is recalled, even though all the advice from the knowledgeable pundits across the diplomatic, academic and military divide is “Go slower” think through the options and don’t be drawn into a knee-jerk reaction.
50% of the public in the latest poll do not want to intervene however unpalatable that may seem to them.
Perhaps we are tired of these young unstatesmanlike politicians and their gung-ho attitude towards world affairs, perhaps we are tired of war, particularly when it appears historically to achieve so little. Perhaps we are tired of the rhetoric from leaders who say and do different things. Perhaps we no longer trust them to make good judgments and get it right in our interests.

Assad is a dictator desperately trying to hold onto power against a civil unrest of different groups that we know very little about. We sat by and encouraged the ousting of a democratically elected head of state in Egypt because we didn’t like his politics resulting in an awful continuing civil war. This from democratically elected governments and espousers of the representative democratic process.
Iraq, despite all our efforts continues to slide into conflict and internal unrest.
Afghanistan, after our dialogue with the Taliban will probably revert to an Islamic state after our withdrawal.
We pontificate whilst Arab nations collectively stand by and say and do nothing. We intimidate the UN to act and gratuitously ignore them and now we contemplate military intervention in order to prevent the further use of chemical weapons domestically by Assad against his own people.
It maybe that as a result of our military action, Assad may discontinue his barbaric actions.
What do you think are the chances of that?
Or perhaps what we create is a wounded animal condemned to death, which cares nothing for the rest of humanity, save himself. How might he react?
Does he have the capability to strike randomly outside of his country’s borders and use his military might to leave the world mortified by his actions against domestic targets in Cyprus, USA targets in Turkey? What happens to the Egypt-Israeli Peace Pact? How will Israel respond if attacked when they have a strategic nuclear capability? If Israel is attacked what will be the West’s role?
Before we do anything governments must consider their primary role which is the safety and well being of the sovereign state and its citizens. Under international law a “Just War” is one which is embarked upon to defend the sovereign state. We would do well to consider that before embarking on any military intervention against Syria.
The undefined “War on Terror” first promulgated by Bush is not a carte blanche to police the world. Any response should be measured, calculated and consensual amongst all affected nation states, any other response maybe illegal and reckless in the extreme.

What is needed now is calm, measured leadership and dialogue.

Having written this prior to the parliamentary debate and then subsequently watched said debate my faith is somewhat restored in the democratic process. Cameron’s leadership of his party will now be seriously questioned before the next election due to his profound lack of judgement. Miliband grew in stature after a faltering start to resonate with gravitas and win the vote but the most celebrated should be the “Conservative 30” who voted with their consciences and did not allow the whipping boys to prevent them standing up for what they believed in. Well done!!

Leadership is also about leading oneself.

Posted August 28, 2013 Posted in Current Affairs, Politics | Leave a response

How Truly Representative is our Representative Democracy?

We have long cherished our particular form of democracy and refer to our Parliament as the “Mother of all Parliaments”. We have long emphasised to others, both those we have colonised and more recently those we have not, that our form of representative democracy is the most appropriate model and is the one to be copied throughout the civilised world. So how truly representative of the electorate is it nowadays?
Assembly democracy in one form or another was born in Athens around 5 BC or modern Iraq at the same time, depending on which history you believe, however it is certain that the development of our representative democracy did not fully flower until much later in the early 20th Century when women were fully enfranchised as a result of the WSPU (Suffragists) efforts led by Emmeline Pankhurst, labelled a terrorist at the time, to which her response was tellingly:

“The grievances of those who have got power, the influence of those who have got power commands a great deal of attention; but the wrongs and grievances of those people who have no power at all are apt to be absolutely ignored. That is the history of humanity right from the beginning.”
Emmeline Pankhurst- Freedom or Death Speech- 13th November 1913- Harford Connecticutt

In light of historical fact it is probably presumptuous of us to claim very much in the development of Democracy as it is today. Those accolades belong in other countries and shores that were well ahead of us in full enfranchisement of all their citizens.
So, what of now and the form of democracy, which is ours today?

Voting Patterns

Let us examine first some of the voting patterns which have elected our representative governments of the day.
Voter turnout has steadily declined 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.
What is the impact on the level of turnout required then to elect a “representative government?”

In 2010 the Tories received 36% of the vote. Only one person in three actually voted for this government. The last successful individual party was Labour in 2005 with only 35% of the vote. The Lib Dems in 2010 received 23% of the vote, so less than one in four people voted for the party which eventually formed the government with the Tories. Neither of these two parties received sufficient votes to form a government and yet under our representative rules they could go ahead and form a government without the permission of the electorate.
I suppose one could argue that 59% of the total vote represents a first past the post majority but ask voters who voted for either party how they feel about that and I am sure the answers in the majority would be, No! I do not like the policies of the other party in government and would not have voted in this way if I thought that the current government did not truly represent my views and translate those into policy.

Current Political Party Demography

Perhaps more importantly let us examine the demography of the main political parties.

The common factors amongst the dominant Tories in government and most poignant in the cabinet which includes the Liberal Democrats, are the narrow sociological factors drawing this group of people together in a dominant political affiliation.

A Public School Education, this is often glossed over or completely omitted when researching the current cabinet members biographies. Only 7% of people are privileged enough to attend these fee paying schools.

Attendance at a Russell Group University overwhelmingly Oxbridge and particularly graduates in Law. Nearly 37% of Oxbridge places are filled by people from the 7% of privileged fee paying public schools and the average cost of this education is over £150,000.

A limited and narrow upper middle class upbringing.

Mainly white males, with very few women and almost no people from a BME background.

The Labour Party Shadow cabinet is also dominated by people from this narrow stratum of society and this in the party founded by the Working Class in 1900 to give a voice to the Working Classes resulting in a landslide victory to form the government after the Second World War. Post that zenith and after sometime in the political doldrums due to errant leadership and counter productive policies, Tony Blair decided that the gentrification of the Party was the only way for it to be both credible and elected. Sometimes known by the chattering classes disparagingly as “Champagne Socialists.” It’s easy to be a socialist when you can fall back on a privileged upbringing, and who collectively are remarkably similar in values and beliefs to the Tories and The Liberal Democrats, who as a party have also reneged on their core policies just to be in power. Aaaah, that wonderful aphrodisiac, which somehow manages to suppress the highest of political ideals merely for a sniff of House of Commons leather seating, on the right side of the house.

Many of our MP’s nowadays move from these privileged universities, to political research roles and then seamlessly to safe seats without even entering the world of work, save to spend a minimum amount of time in an unpaid internship both engineered through their privileged power networks and supported by Bank of “Mum and Dad”.

Ask anyone who has an interest in politics and wishes to enter the political world in order to be an MP or a Local Councillor what the process is and I suggest it becomes both very difficult and convoluted unless you join a mainstream political party or are willing to invest a huge amount of your own capital to be a successful independent.

Conclusions

It appears that we are only able to elect a group of people from a very narrow group of society who often appear collectively to have no idea of the rigours and obstacles that ordinary people face on a day to day basis in terms of employment, housing, education, travel and bringing up a family. Voter apathy maybe to blame but it begs the question why is the electorate so apathetic and continues to become more apathetic as time goes on. My conclusion, which is based only on anecdotal evidence although I am sure there will be some statistical polls to support this, is lack of trust in our politicians and lack of leadership by the political elite.
Examples of this assail us in the media constantly and are highlighted with scandals of MP’s expenses, Leveson etc, but a couple of individual examples spring to mind which encapsulate this continuing mendacity and lack of veracity from our political leaders over many years.
The infamous Paxman-Howard interview on Newsnight, where the question was posed eleven times in one form or another by Paxman without a reply of any semblance of a direct answer by Howard and of course more recently the Marr- Cameron interview, where when asked if he had spoken to Crosby, his political advisor with interests in the corporate world of tobacco about cigarette packaging, the obfuscating replies moved over time by Cameron from “not lobbied” to “did not intervene” but never answered the question of “Did you speak with Lynton Crosby on this subject?”

The natural conclusion is because of your obfuscation that you (Cameron) probably did.So say so and state clearly that it did not influence your decision.

We may not have a truly representative democracy but it would certainly stick in our throats less if we could have confidence in their leadership and believed what they told us.
The essence of leadership is and always has been authenticity and consistency and the result is trust and confidence even if the governing political party is not truly representative of that most recently patronising descriptive phrase “The Great British Public” whoever that includes.
The lack of representation is not just an issue of elitism but also of authentic and consistent leadership which may well be a leadership principle for all leaders at all levels in all areas of society.

References:-
Great Speeches of the 20th Century- Preface 2008
The Life and Death of Democracy- John Keane- Simon and Schuster 2009

Posted July 29, 2013 Posted in Current Affairs | Leave a response

Categories

Previous Posts