Friday, April 30, 2010

Third UK Leaders Debate: Forced To Work

"(People) must be forced to work" Gordon Brown. What kind of work is this that we need to be forced to do it?

"If you are offered work you can do, you must take it." David Cameron.

How do we encourage people to work? We talk about contribution. We talk about life and what it is about. We enable fulfilment via contribution ('work') that realises ours potential. We enable learning. There is no self-esteem in work that doesn't fulfil us.

"The right thing" is, according to David Cameron, to take work that does nothing to fulfil our potential, that does nothing to enable us to grow.

Rather than forcing people to work, we need to look at ways to make the work better, so we want to do it. Better work, work that works better, is also more effective work, work that isn't wasteful, work that is fulfilling and purposeful.

None of the leaders can get their heads around the fact that it isn't people who are the problem, it is the work that is the problem. That is what we need to fix. Take the hammer to the work so that people will want to do it, don't take the hammer to the people to force them to do it.

[Third UK Leaders Debate on BBC (via C-Span)]


Saturday, April 24, 2010

Second UK Leaders Debate

How do leaders keep us choosing them when all they do is the same? Through fear, through stoking the fear of what will happen if we do things differently from the way they have been done before.

We accept control from controllers not so much because of the fear of their retaliation as the fear that they feed us on what will happen if we don't do what they say, if we do something different.

The leaders 'reality' of only doing things their way in the way that has been done before is the reality they create, it is not the one we have to have if we wish to do things differently, to do things better. Gordon Brown's and David Cameron's "Get real" means get with the reality as they see it, in which things are done they way they do them, as they have been done in the past. But this is not the reality to choose if we want to do things better.

When the British leaders talk about Europe and "allies" they seem to forget who their traditional "allies" actually were, and that not all of them were European. Britain would have greater strength if it remembered its allies in the Commonwealth and, in particular, the diaspora of British peoples in New Zealand, Australia, Canada and America who have a massive emotional and ancestral link to the land they originally came from.

If Britain's trade is now 'mainly with Europe' it is to a great extant because they have turned their back on their traditional allies and the greater trade they had with them in the past as part of the deal for 'joining Europe'. But Britain should be able to be part of Europe and keep its allies. It is when 'Europe' forces Britain into an either-or choice (Europe or allies) that Europe is wrong, and when this happens, Britain should stand up for itself and its people wherever they are.

[Second UK Election Debate on Sky]


Friday, April 23, 2010

First UK Leaders Debate

The politician's are falling back on the same failed policies of the past, nothing really new.

Lib Dem Leader Nick Clegg won big time on education, actually addressed the question and didn't patronise the young person who asked it.

Gordon Brown has a mocking smile when listening which is very unattractive.

You would think that with something as powerful as 'Systems Thinking' to use for cutting waste that it would be mentioned in the leaders debate, but no-one did. So it still seems no-one's going to do it.

Let's get rid of the yo-yo nature of economics that our system conspires for, this requires real change, to the system, not band-aids on the symptoms, but holistic change that prevents the damage from occurring in the first place.

David Cameron's, "If you work hard I will support you", is not true. It's more 'If you work hard at only the work I want you to do, then I will support you', and that's just a crap deal.

[First UK Election Debate on ITV1]


Monday, April 12, 2010

'Real Work' Is Not Only 'Paid Work'

Jane Clifton's article on beneficiaries ('Suck It And See', Listener, Apr 10-16, 2010) is an insult to people in general and a wrong-headed interpretation of what work is. She makes the common mistake of equating 'work' with only 'paid jobs', and denigrates those whose 'work' is unpaid as less than human.

Her article is an insult to those who are attempting to make a contribution that reflects their own skills and abilities in the places they see a need, whether this work is remunerated or not.

She equates all work of worth with work that is paid for by employers, an extremely narrow definition that excludes the very real and rewarding contribution that all people can make when they choose how, when and where they contribute.

Jane refers to beneficiaries who are not 'structurally unemployed' or who have not been irredeemably damaged by society (a group perhaps much larger than she realises) as an, "…elective underclass of bludger…", and proceeds to insult them, as if by doing the work they want to do, work not offered by an employer or well remunerated, makes them 'indecent', 'dishonest' and uninterested in, "…providing for [their] family."

After dehumanising, "…such people…", she then proceeds to the next step of persecuting them with the cry of there being a, "…good case … for putting them into work gangs…", and pleading that, "…such people need a prod…".

Dehumanising and persecuting are the features of '-isms' that make for racism, sexism, ageism and all the grouping of persons into 'other' categories where they are considered less than ourselves and eligible for persecution. This performance should be beneath a person of Jane's intelligence and standing, and for a supposedly fairly 'enlightened' magazine, such as the Listener, to give it a voice, is disappointing.

Perhaps Jane might want to think about how there might be a bit more to life (and work) than just the work that is valued by the dollar, and use her public position to publicise how we might make a society where the value of work is according to how well it fulfils the potential of people, not just how well it exploits them (and the Earth's resources) for the few that employ (and own) them.

[Jane's full article won't be online until 24 April 2010, but hopefully, when it is, you will be able to see it here:]