Author: tomkilcourse

Sarah Palin’s daughter ‘is Ann Widdecombe of America’

Can you see the likeness?

Can there be any clearer sign of Britain’s decadence than the absence of its political leaders on ‘paternity leave’? The latest to prefer cradle to Commons is the leader of the opposition, Ed Milliband. Do these ‘leaders’ not realise that we are in momentous times? Does the allegedly socialist leader consider how his absence might appear to those who look to Labour to defend their interests, the employees facing the sack, the tenants who may be ejected from their homes etc? We have three leaders of child producing age, Cameron, Clegg and Milliband. What happens if they all have children at the same time? These people were elected for their supposed leadership qualities, not as caring daddies.

I heard on the radio this morning that the government is thinking of turning various sectors of public service into John Lewis type employee co-operatives. The existing employees of, say, Bogsville’s Probationary Service will be able to come forward with a business plan and show how they can run the service better. This was presented as new thinking.

Really, have we forgotten British Rail already? That monolith was fragmented and flogged off at knock-down prices. Managers and staff were pressed to buy the bits and pieces, and some did. What happened? After running their bit for a year or two, they sold it on to some commercial outfit and made a mint. Did it improve Britain’s railway? Not really, but the new millionaires were happy. So, in three or four years shall we hear, ‘fancy buying a probation service, anyone?’

I wonder, is having learning difficulties an essential qualification in politics?

Stockport Council has upset the residents of Brinnington, a council estate on which I used to live, with this poster.

As residents in France we have difficulty in finding decent christmas cards, so we order from England on the net. One charity we bought from in the past took ages to deliver, so we have changed to another supplier. We ordered last week and they were delivered today. They are to our liking, traditional Christmas scenes, and not at all expensive. For anyone who may be interested, the supplier is ‘Cards for Good Causes Ltd’ at http://www.cardsforcharity.co.uk

Mention of the word ‘philosophy’ switches many people off, possibly because they associate it with long dead Greeks. That is a pity because, contrary to the view that philosophy is irrelevant to modern life, it is the determinant of the direction we take. It is the hidden hand that guides our actions and controls the way we think. This came to mind recently when someone argued cogently in support of the ‘rule of law’. So, at the risk of switching people off, I wish to make a few points about the prevailing philosophy presently guiding Britain.

The philosophical ground on which we stand has never been stable, and its movement accounts for most of the political and social conflict witnessed over centuries, but a significant shift occurred in the nineteen-seventies when a stream of psychological-philosophical theories crossed the Atlantic.

There were a number of theories involved, transactional analysis being the one that I found myself contesting in particular, but the thrust of them all was the promotion of individual ‘autonomy’. I happened to be working in a management college when a couple of my colleagues became enamoured with TA and began to promote the theory. It is inappropriate to go into my theoretical objections here, I published two attacks at the time, but the crux of the matter is the pursuit of individual autonomy.

Autonomy is not simply another word for individualism, but gives credence to a form of individualism that is essentially a lie. The insubstantial theories that promoted that lie have long since evaporated, deservedly, but the deception buried itself deep in the psyche so that it survives today. Ironically, it is the people who most firmly believe themselves autonomous that are the least free: projecting themselves as cheap copies of some adman’s version of reality.

There is an alternative form of individualism that rejects the falsehood: authenticity. A skilful painter could copy a Rembrandt masterpiece, perhaps producing a more attractive image than the original, but it can never be an authentic Rembrandt. Similarly, a person who basis his identity on what is claimed to be fashionable at the moment, is neither authentic nor genuinely free.

Those embracing autonomy rather than developing the authentic self are walking into a philosophical cul-de-sac, and there are many of them. Indeed, given the state of Britain today, they appear to be in the majority.

The proposed benefit reforms put me in mind of a doomed ship heading for the rocks, on the bridge the wheel is spinning, intercoms are buzzing, levers are being pulled, but the bridge is disconnected from the rest of the ship. If, as I understand, the Government is placing its faith in the existing staff of employment offices to exercise their judgement as to whom should lose out: forget it. Little Miss Molly is never going to take responsibility for stopping Bert Gutbusting’s benefit, not in a month of Sundays. Little Miss Molly may be prepared to face Bert’s anger, and that of his kinfolk, despite living in the same town, but is she able to swim against the long established culture of the service?

To have a prayer of making the scheme work, the Government has to change the culture of the employment service at the coalface and, even then, it will be necessary to employ hard-nosed specialists to confront Bert and sort him out.

A second problem lies in the notion that benefits will be threatened for those who refuse job offers. Who thought that one up? Over forty years ago I was recruiting workers for a Manchester manufacturing company. We had restructured the shift system and needed a number of workers. I still remember the bloke who made not the slightest pretence of wanting a job. “Just sign the form, will you boss? That shows I’ve attended.” I signed because we clearly didn’t want him near the factory, but I telephoned the employment office to report him. I know not what action they took, if any. Other less bold souls took the job, but their employment did not last more than a few weeks. It is not the employer’s role to keep deadbeats off the street, or to act as a policeman for the service.

Finally, I wonder whose nerve will break first when Bert’s kids are found begging in the street.

When I heard this morning of another attack on Christians in Iraq, victims of the first attack have been brought to France with their relatives, I could not help wondering if these outrages would have happened under Saddam. I think not. He was a brutal dictator, but he kept the lid on this kind of thing. Will these Christians now say a prayer of thanks to Messrs Bush and Blair?

I listened in astonishment this morning to a discussion on radio in which it was suggested seriously that colleges of further education could offer a cheap way to obtain a degree. Have they lost their marbles completely? I have had a considerable amount of experience with English colleges of FE, as a client and as an occasional lecturer. I have yet to find one that impressed me with its standards, or to find many lecturers who knew or cared much about their subject. If the educational establishment thinks that already sceptical employers will take degrees from FE colleges seriously, they are on the wrong planet.

The Telegraph carried an interesting article today by Liam Halligan on the international economy. A similar article appeared in yesterday’s Le Figaro. It appears that the American decision to go for another dose of ‘quantitative easing’ (pumping more money into the economy) has set the cat amidst the pigeons. Germany, China, Uncle Tom Cobley and all, are upset by the prospect of the dollar becoming cheaper and making their own currencies a handicap to exports. China in particular is upset because of the effect on its massive holdings of American paper.

Though humour was not the intention, Halligan’s piece made me chuckle at certain points. For instance, ‘…China gave the States a public tongue lashing. Measures to cap trade surpluses would “hark back to the days of planned economies”, said Cui Tiankai, who will be one of China’s lead negotiators in Seoul.’ This is rich coming from a prominent figure in the country most active in practicing state capitalism, or neo-mercantilism, as some have called it.

Later in the article, the sentence ‘This is not the way liberal capitalism and free trade is supposed to work.’ also made me smile. In truth, liberal capitalism and free trade never has worked as it is supposed to. The performance has never matched the rhetoric in its favour, with not a single major economy having developed on its basis.

My hope is that this latest crisis and America’s response to it will at last drive home the realisation that the belief in ‘liberal capitalism and free trade’ is a disaster for the West. Voices in America are already raised against the philosophy among the intelligentsia and academics, but it needs to become a no-no at the political level before change takes place. Hopefully, the politicians’ instinct to save their skins may just trigger it off.