Blog

Our infrastructure is declining, poverty is increasing, and all the Parliamentary Front Benches want to talk about is their own expenses, the next election, and the inadequacy of the people on the opposite bench, which sums up the state of things today.

I don’t think it is only I who finds a high proportion of the Parliamentary thinking, to be totally irrational, and responsible for incredible waste of time and money. This business of the identity cards is only the tip of the iceberg. The whole system has not the confidence needed to make monumental decisions, in the face of media criticism, purely because they are right. They have not the experience and the ability to take account of all the imponderables, and make decisions after careful thought, before launching into statements. Rather they rush into matters that will never see the light of day in the way in which they were intended, and had not been thoroughly vetted prior to being launched at great cost, great controversy, followed by a U-turn. Media conception is the top priority. The credit crunch would never have happened if the members of Parliament had mostly been more interested in the jobs they were intended to do, rather than their own jobs per se. The Lords has obviously come to the end of its useful life, because it was its duty to oversee so much of what has been stupidly contemplated and legislated in recent years by this government. As everybody says, the war in Afghanistan is a glaring example, if the Russians, with their scant concern for human life and the edicts of equality, failed, why should we, with our more sensitive approach hope to be successful?

My personal stumbling block is that I have little respect for the members of the parties of the opposition, because as I have said before, I believe they are untried, inexperienced, and have roughly the same qualities, attitude and aspirations of the incumbents. This is a frightening statement, but people like Blair, through their presidential system, gave the up-and-coming members of Parliament very little experience of being in command, which is essentially training for future serious office, and all the time you’re in Opposition, you have no training at all. Another glaring example of the incompetence of this government was the way it dealt with the statements put out by the Daily Telegraph, for gain rather than the benefit of our system, thus making fools of our nation as a whole, worldwide. It was not as if no one knew about it, at least over a couple of thousands people knew about it, and had accepted it as a normal way of life, handed down through the ages. There is such a thing as a D notice, and there must be other means of reducing the impact, for the material, that if it couldn’t be stopped, should have been published on only one day. It has strangled Parliamentary procedure, done more damage than anything else could have done, when lies about the Iraq war seemed to go on without challenge.

We are in serious straits, and what we need is a cohesive coalition government, comprising the best experience and the best brains available, where sniping ceases, and the good of the country is paramount. It may be that the only way we can achieve this is for the Queen herself, assuming she has the powers, to inaugurate it in the way in which it was done in 1939/40. We can’t go on the way we are with one U-turn per week, vast sums of money wasted on projects on the drawing board, and having been passed, that are so idiotic they have to be rescinded, when the government actually wakes up. This, I hope, will be seen as a constructive, not destructive, comment on something that is so vital to our economy, and the future of not only us but the generations to come.
.

In parts one and two, I pointed out that civil servants, because of the fact that they are incepted straight from university or school, and trained in the ways of the civil service, they have no experience outside the civil service, and yet they are the ones who are carrying out the wishes of the lawmakers. I also pointed out that it is almost impossible for a member of the public to register criticism, even if passed on by his MP. The reply coming from the Cabinet, obviously written by a civil servant, either doesn’t address the problem, or is a series of platitudes that get one nowhere. I also pointed out that change for the sake of change, and in particular sweeping change is costly, disruptive, pettifogging and wasteful of the time of both those implementing it and those for whom it serves. I stressed that the great advantage of local government, if properly funded and properly run, was that information, question and answer and even criticism could be managed verbally as the people were in the same building, or the same area, and so protracted memo writing would be avoided, and the public would have instant access either to their councillor or to heads of department.

I have a dichotomy, on one hand I’m saying that sweeping change is disruptive etc., and on the other that I feel that it is necessary to transfer the power for our major services to local government. What I’m really hoping will happen one day, is that we will put the clock back, institute local government as it originally was, and leave central government to act as a watchdog pure and simple. The problem today is that the government in power, worries about its rating in the media, its own ego, its electoral future, all put before the needs of the electorate. To this is added the remoteness of the control, and some of the ridiculous rules placed by bureaucracy, that hinder the work in hand. This would not happen in local government. For example if a big contract loses time because there has been a national strike of transport, the differential in costs from what would have been spent and what has been spent, at the end of the financial year, instead of being rolled over to the following year, it is taken back by the Treasury, and has to be re-budgeted for – an example of the problems of bureaucracy over pragmatism.

I can visualise the problems of putting the clock back, it should never have been put forward. I fear that it would have to be done at a time when the country is once again stable, affluent, and ready to change, and done in such a way that disruption is catered for, and the whole process is done in an orderly fashion, and not in the way this government makes rash changes at the drop of a hat, right across the board, without any trials and test runs, and could just as easily change its mind and go on another tack. Is it any wonder we are all confused, and apathetic.

Whether you accept what I wrote yesterday or not, you must accept that while changing the function of any one Department of our system is going to cause an upheaval and confusion due to the change, for the professionals working in it, the general public who will be using the Department, and also initially, with hours of study for those involved in the change, and a high level of people involved in the change. Now multiply this by the number of departments that Brown is or will be proposing to change, and I doubt if there are sufficient civil servants and Parliamentary time to accomplish it. I have always objected, as you will have read, to the presence of unelected spin-doctors having such a strong input to Parliamentary policy. In any walk of life, if you are employed as an adviser, you need to sustain the dependence of your employer upon you, or you will be out of a job. Apply this theory to spin-doctors and it is then apparent that they have to keep coming up with new ideas on a regular basis. I suspect that this sweeping change policy, is a case in point.

Take targets, I have never understood how you can provide a target in a regime such as education, when the conditions of the place of work, the environment and the social status of that area, can be so disparate from another. Take a rundown area of London, where there is poverty, a considerable amount of mixed races, and all that that implies, but given the same targets as Milton Keens. It is illogical. Continuing with the example of education, if you remove targets, then the only way you can monitor the educational success of the school is by exam results, and it appears that under these sweeping changes we will be doing away with that yardstick. It is not a secret that schoolteachers have a preferences among the pupils that they teach, so how can you have an assessment system that is fair? Targets, in my view, are government tools for persuading the electorate that they are doing a good job. The fact that it and other demands force written returns is highly wasteful of the time of the staff, and the frustration that this accords, is detrimental to the efficiency of the system. In all of life pragmatism should be the first principle.

To prove my point, I quote my experiences as an instructor in radar maintenance in the Royal Navy during the war. It was an eye-opener to me. We were training young men in their teens and early 20s the skills of repairing delicate highly complicated, electronic units, which were totally new in concept. These young men would be sent to sea, entrusted with the maintenance of these items, totally alone as no one else on the ship would understand the work, they would make their own decisions without reference, except to a book or their class notes, yet the success and safety of the ship, depended on them. We had a unique system of examination. The pupil was allowed to carry any written material he chose into the examination room and refer to it, without talking. The exams in this case gave the condition that these young men were to face once they were at sea, to find a solution to a problem, solely from the information they had and the knowledge that they had obtained. We guessed who would come out top. In marking these men, and using the one who’s work was best, we gave him about 95%, and graded everyone else according. That is pragmatism. It is not necessarily applicable in many cases, but that doesn’t stop an element of pragmatism being used when setting exams and marking them.

The government, through its civil servants, has a totally different basis upon which to manage the various aspects of our lives. Few, I believe, have had experience in the world of commerce, education or medicine etc, with the result that there is little pragmatism, but rather an academic emphasis by those operating the systems. I believe that the control is better left at a local level, such as a county council, where there is the possibility of serious interaction between the professionals and the controllers, and where pragmatism can be implemented, will cost much less, and take into account local conditions, not, on the basis of memos from somewhere anything up to 400 miles away

I want to make a complaint, but before I do that, I should give the basis of my expertise. At school I played from the Also-rans, and when I was evacuated in 1939/40 I played for a village team on the village green. I could bat a bit, bowled off breaks with some success, but any success was primarily due to the poor quality of the pitch. I sometimes kept wicket, and on one occasion the ball hit my toe, shot straight up, hit me under the chin and caused me to bite my tongue, a unique experience. I always thought batting was best carried out by a comparatively short, stocky and strong men, rather than six-foot-plus willowy creatures as I was, although I did once, more by luck than judgement, score 50 plus. We certainly in those days, never flung ourselves about the village green, sliding on our stomachs after some uncatchable catch, we just stood for ages in the deep, bored out of our tiny minds because the opposition couldn’t hit the ball anywhere near the boundary.

Now for the complaint! I have been watching the Sri Lankan bowler, Malinga, and his chucking action, rather than bowling as everyone else does. It was in the last year or the year before, that there was a whole who-ha about his bowling, and ultimately it was agreed that his action was legal. I beg to differ. We are constantly being regaled by the latest teaching principles of bowling, which is so dependent on the shape of the body just before delivery, and even more importantly after delivery, so as to be legal and what is more important still, to reduce the possibility of damage to the bowler’s spine. The batsmen, who are facing balls travelling at 90 miles an hour do their best to see how the ball was held prior to, and leaving the hand, so they can interpret where and how it will land. Because of the speed with which the ball is hurled, the recognition of these facts is more a matter of instinct and practice, than careful examination, and so, if the bowler has an action which is totally different to everyone else in the game, that bowler has an unfair advantage, and it is no wonder that he has high dismissal records. I protest!

If you choose to read on, you will probably find that this is not what you expected. I spent two years of my childhood in Northern Rhodesia in the 20s, when the white man ruled and the indigenous population were virtual slaves. But the mindset of the whites had nothing to do with racism, they merely looked upon their African servants, in the way that the average housewife looks at the washing machine and dishwasher today, she feeds it, keeps it clean, has it repaired when required, and takes it for granted. Until the 50s we had hardly heard of racism, it was more a case of demarcation, and I propose to treat all the aspects of demarcation and racism equally.

>From as far back as I can remember there was demarcation, a class system, and snobbery, basically all the same thing, and if you think of the various strata of our society then and now, there hasn’t been that much change, we all have a place and we know our place, whether we decide to make such advantage that we may have as a tool for enhancement is a matter for the individual, not necessarily adopted by all. The titles of the places have changed, it seems that celebrities from whatever background, are more important now than titled people or even those in charge of our destiny. You will never get rid of demarcation, it is the hallmark of success, it has a snob value, and a commercial value.

Racist riots are generally not to do with racism per se, but with territorial, economic or social problems, but the word racism has a tag of an entirely different sort, it is intended to appeal to the conscience of the world, whether valid or not, that there is demarcation that, in most cases, is unacceptable to the minority. This has now become not only a social tool, but a political tool. It gives substance to spurious rhetoric, which can rouse feelings of intense hatred of what is seen as a highly differential demarcation. In all my nearly 90 years, I can’t remember a more disturbed time, when a high proportion of the races of this world were at one another’s throats, apart from WW2. I suggests that if we all considered racism as demarcation, it would be less pejorative and possibly less open to abuse.

With a level gaze, and a firm voice, all our leaders in the House of Commons informed us that they were going to bring us into the 20th century if not the 21st by reforming the way in which the House of Commons was run. But I noticed that with this election of the new Speaker all the old ritual pertained, even to the dragging of the successful member to the Speaker’s chair.

With 600 members voting for 10 candidates, using three votes with successive reductions in the numbers, it must have been bedlam, and taken hours. Then you have all the procedure of everybody getting back on the seats, chattering on the way, and then, presumably, 10 men sent before the Deputy Speaker, to read out the votes. The members are then informed of the reduce selection, and the whole thing is performed again twice more to get a winner. I would suggest that that took probably half a day, and before that there had been considerable discussion throughout the House, concerning the selection of the contestants, the suitability of them, and the strategies needed to get the man home they wanted, which would probably have taken the up the to three hours, on average.

I assume for a simple calculation that the average MP has an annual salary of £100,000, and say another 20,000 for expenses, staff etc making a total of £120,000 per annum, with 600 MPs working a 200 day year this will amount to an all overall cost per hour for the working of Parliament of £360,000. To this must be added the staff to keep the place running, heating and lighting maintenance etc I suggest that the overall cost then becomes closer than £600,000 per hour. If the total consideration and voting procedures took 6 hours, then the cost to the Exchequer from voting would therefore be £2.2m.

I believe I could do it an awful lot cheaper. First of all the contestants had no need to give a wee speech, the fact that they have been put forward surely meant that everybody knew who they were, and what they were, even if the electorate is ignorant. If I had been there I would have had serious doubts about Margaret Beckett’s credentials, but then I’m biased. So I have saved time already. I suspect that I could purchase a gizmo that the ITV programme Who Wants To Be A Millionaire uses for a voting, for probably £60k to £100,000, as I would need 600. Then I would rent the Albert Hall, set up this machine with its vote connections at every one of 600 seats. I will arrange to have printed an A4 sheet with 10 squares at the top with photographs of the contestants and their personal details set in the squares, and the squares will be numbered one to 10. The photographs would be on a page of one of these sticky type pads, so that they could be stripped off and put on to one of 7 squares for those who have been selected, and the three who were rejected will be left on the top row. This procedure would go in this manner until the winner was selected. I think the system would be very simple. The whole vote will only take 20 minutes from start to finish, you would need half an hour to get the people in place and another half hour for them to leave, the people would be seated as they arrived, not in order of their political affiliations. So we’re talking in terms of another half hour, which will be approximately half the price of the system used, but we would be in the 20th century, and as it is possible that that voting machinery would have been designed for 10 people, they could use it time and again in a modern parliament, and thus save money over the years.

You are going to tell me that this is rubbish, and so it is, because it would never happen, but it is a form of moving into the future, cutting costs, and using technology to save money. I only hope, that those who are going to make the changes are sufficiently sophisticated to enable them to embrace the latest technology.

The Blair legacy Right up until the premiership of Anthony Eden, there was very little public criticism of the behaviour of prime ministers as a general rule, other than Neville Chamberlain. Because access to information by the general public only became easy with the advent of television, the average citizen was generally politically lethargic. At the same time the politicians in power, were people dedicated to politics, and either through their own wealth, or being sponsored by political factions rather than being trained at University, did not accept the post as a profession, they did so in order to right the wrongs. Up until Maggie Thatcher, the Cabinets of the governing parties carried a high proportion of older and more experienced politicians.

With Tony Blair and New Labour there was not only a sweeping change in communications because not only was television a universal commentator, but there was also the computer. With Tony Blair there was also a serious change in the way in which politics were conducted, it was a presidential philosophy, and anyone in the Cabinet who disagreed with the PM either resigned or disappeared from office. This was a period of continuous change of portfolio of the members of the Cabinet, they were no sooner in one post, than they were in another. The way in which the handover was done, in which the next Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, was elected by Tony Blair rather than the country, was yet another divergence from the norm. The Blair philosophy also instituted many young and inexperienced politicians to high rank, presumably because they were easier to control, and Blair also openly instituted the spin-doctor. Spurious lies were also a feature. The result of all these changes has been the mess we are in today, where the public not only has no respect any more for our political system, a high proportion are disgusted. There has been a serious lack of control since Gordon Brown took over, in areas like finance, control of reaction to the media, and the almost reflex reaction, rather than serious consideration, which has allowed the media to dictate what is important and demands instant attention.

The electorate, those who are not totally apathetic or disillusioned, are demanding an election, which is being resisted, for now at least. The fact that the choice of politicians who will govern us whichever party finally wins, will be virtually a rubberstamp of the ones they beat, with the same lack of experience, the same personal agenda, and apart from one or two, fearful of losing their job, really bodes little change.