The other day I bought a lighter. Not just any lighter, but a Turboflame lighter (Turbo2). It's like a cross between a miniature blow torch and a light sabre. It is fantastic. I can't begin to say what a great thing it is.
I've never smoked, but it's always useful to have a lighter around for barbeques, candles and such. We usually have cheap disposable ones, although I do have zippo tucked away somewhere.
As with so many things, it's not so much about what it does, but how it does it, and its aesthetics as an object. A nicely painted cast alumumum body with a satisfyingly robust flip-top lid is a good start. The shape is vaguely remeniscent of a very small light sabre. But click the little button and you get two (yes two!) little jets of blue flame and a most satisfying hiss. The last time I saw anything that impressive it was the afterburners of a pair of RB199s on the back of Tornado jet fighter taking off.
As with so many objects of desire, it has a nice size and weight, fitting neatly into the palm of a hand and heavy enought to feel substantial. At 9 pounds sterling, it's not too expensive either - a Zippo will set you back twice as much at least, and whereas most other lighters will get blown out by any amount of breeze, with the Turboflame this is next to impossible.
I don't know whether my enthusiasm for the Turboflame indicates some kind of incipient mid-life crisis, or a developing addiction to
'boys toys'.
I prefer to think it's just the emergence of some primative instict - that finding satisfaction in the ability to make fire or build shelter is a connection to our ancesters. Just one step on the road to connecting with our inner Ray Mears.
Monday 29 July 2013
Thursday 25 July 2013
NHSmail barometer
According to the government, the 'transition' of the NHS from its old, inefficient, un-modernised state, to its new svelt, efficient, modernised state was accomplished on 1 April this year. At least all of the key tasks of 'lifting and shifting' staff from closing organisations to opening organisations had been done and major change to IT systems had taken place.
I should know, I've read the closure report of the Informatics Transition Programme without falling asleep.
But what's this that a colleague has posted to my email account today? It appears to be a catalogue of failure for local organisations to properly reconfigure NHSmail to reflect the new organisational structure.
The main points are:
The document was provided as background with a request to NHS England to provide assistance and pressure on local organisations to get their act together. Precious hope there, given that NHS England is still struggling to set itself up, appoint people to key posts and develop its operating arrangements.
It's going to take 3-5 years for this round of changes to shake out and bed in. And that's only if Andy Burnham doesn't set the whole sorry mess in motion again in 2015.
I should know, I've read the closure report of the Informatics Transition Programme without falling asleep.
But what's this that a colleague has posted to my email account today? It appears to be a catalogue of failure for local organisations to properly reconfigure NHSmail to reflect the new organisational structure.
The main points are:
- On 30 June, about 116,000 NHSmail accounts had not been transferred to new organisations (a third of those affected)
- 21,000 generic mailboxes had not been moved
- 76 closed organisations (i.e. those abolished on 31 March) were still creating new NHSmail accounts
- Local administrators had not been assigned to cover pharmacies, opticians and dentists in 7 out of 25 areas
The document was provided as background with a request to NHS England to provide assistance and pressure on local organisations to get their act together. Precious hope there, given that NHS England is still struggling to set itself up, appoint people to key posts and develop its operating arrangements.
It's going to take 3-5 years for this round of changes to shake out and bed in. And that's only if Andy Burnham doesn't set the whole sorry mess in motion again in 2015.
Friday 19 July 2013
Plastic politics, plastic politicians
Yesterday I was rather piqued by an article by the BBC journalist Brian Wheeler on NHS privatisation. The concept of the article was good in that it tried to ask a question too often mired in thoughtless and polarised debate. Unfortunately it was compromised by only having one view from either side of the argument and very little analysis.
What really stood out though was that both individuals interviewed are part of what is becoming recognisable as a wider political class - a group that is largely white, largely male, largely privately and Oxbridge educated, largely metropolitan and largely unconnected with mainstream England. Certainly those parts that lie outside the M25.
Part of the disillusionment with current politics is rooted in the sense that 'all politicians are the same' because in so ways they are. Cameron and Milliband are both forty-something white men with little experience outside of the greater Westminster political establishment. Which includes a growing range of think tanks in addition to the party research departments that act as the sole incubators of supposed political talent.
Brian Wheeler's two interviewees are the next generation of this in the making. Thomas Cawston, BA in history and politics from Exeter, MA in south Asian history from Oxford followed by 'research' (I use the term loosely) at Reform. Oliver Huitson, more unusually with an OU degree (PPE) and postgrad from Birkbeck (politics and government) followed by some work experience in telesales, communications financial services, topped off with writing for OpenDemocracy and editing a pro-nationalised NHS website funded by the Wainwright Trust. All with a thoroughly metropolitan flavour.
Now I've never been one to dismiss academic study and think tank 'research' as 'fancy book learning' that has no value beside a degree from the University of Life. But it is noticeable that the colonisation of the political classes by people with such narrow range of backgrounds and experience is having a profound effect on political discourse and debate.
The positions taken in Wheeler's debate is a good example. The pitch on both sides tend to be technocratic, theoretical and idealised. Unleavened with any sense of real-world messiness and compromise.
Cawston's citing of examples from Europe of more mixed healthcare economies ignores the historical and cultural context of the NHS. His assertion that competition can drive real improvement in care is not supported by hard evidence. The example he cites is still in progress and whether it really delivers better care will only become clear some time in the future.
This kind of stuff is fine for scoring points in university political society debates, but this is the real world and real people we're talking about now. The evidence we have from the compulsory competitive tendering of hospital cleaning services back in the late 80s points in the other direction: quality plummeted and ultimately this lead to MRSA and ridiculous spectacle of Gordon Brown ordering the 'deep clean' of hospitals.
Two decades on from the purchaser provider split and we are still trying to get the results we want from market-based systems, whilst he overhead costs of maintaining that market in terms of contracting, legal bills and regulation proliferate.
It doesn't help that the person trying to make this argument looks about twelve (he's actually about 27).
Huitson makes a better fist of putting together a convincing argument (although I'll confess it fits with my own view), but it still has that desiccated feel of a final year essay rather than a real life issue affecting real people. Ultimately, both arguments leave a lingering feeling of inauthenticity.
The net affect is to reinforce the perception that politicians are all dishonest and make politics feel remote and un-engaging to the majority of people. This is the real reason that people feel no connection with national politics and the people that supposedly represent them in parliament. If political parties really want to forge a better connections with the population at large, they should start by recruiting from a much wider pool of talent both socially and geographically and try to reintroduce some authenticity into the body politic.
What really stood out though was that both individuals interviewed are part of what is becoming recognisable as a wider political class - a group that is largely white, largely male, largely privately and Oxbridge educated, largely metropolitan and largely unconnected with mainstream England. Certainly those parts that lie outside the M25.
Part of the disillusionment with current politics is rooted in the sense that 'all politicians are the same' because in so ways they are. Cameron and Milliband are both forty-something white men with little experience outside of the greater Westminster political establishment. Which includes a growing range of think tanks in addition to the party research departments that act as the sole incubators of supposed political talent.
Brian Wheeler's two interviewees are the next generation of this in the making. Thomas Cawston, BA in history and politics from Exeter, MA in south Asian history from Oxford followed by 'research' (I use the term loosely) at Reform. Oliver Huitson, more unusually with an OU degree (PPE) and postgrad from Birkbeck (politics and government) followed by some work experience in telesales, communications financial services, topped off with writing for OpenDemocracy and editing a pro-nationalised NHS website funded by the Wainwright Trust. All with a thoroughly metropolitan flavour.
Now I've never been one to dismiss academic study and think tank 'research' as 'fancy book learning' that has no value beside a degree from the University of Life. But it is noticeable that the colonisation of the political classes by people with such narrow range of backgrounds and experience is having a profound effect on political discourse and debate.
The positions taken in Wheeler's debate is a good example. The pitch on both sides tend to be technocratic, theoretical and idealised. Unleavened with any sense of real-world messiness and compromise.
Cawston's citing of examples from Europe of more mixed healthcare economies ignores the historical and cultural context of the NHS. His assertion that competition can drive real improvement in care is not supported by hard evidence. The example he cites is still in progress and whether it really delivers better care will only become clear some time in the future.
This kind of stuff is fine for scoring points in university political society debates, but this is the real world and real people we're talking about now. The evidence we have from the compulsory competitive tendering of hospital cleaning services back in the late 80s points in the other direction: quality plummeted and ultimately this lead to MRSA and ridiculous spectacle of Gordon Brown ordering the 'deep clean' of hospitals.
Two decades on from the purchaser provider split and we are still trying to get the results we want from market-based systems, whilst he overhead costs of maintaining that market in terms of contracting, legal bills and regulation proliferate.
It doesn't help that the person trying to make this argument looks about twelve (he's actually about 27).
Huitson makes a better fist of putting together a convincing argument (although I'll confess it fits with my own view), but it still has that desiccated feel of a final year essay rather than a real life issue affecting real people. Ultimately, both arguments leave a lingering feeling of inauthenticity.
The net affect is to reinforce the perception that politicians are all dishonest and make politics feel remote and un-engaging to the majority of people. This is the real reason that people feel no connection with national politics and the people that supposedly represent them in parliament. If political parties really want to forge a better connections with the population at large, they should start by recruiting from a much wider pool of talent both socially and geographically and try to reintroduce some authenticity into the body politic.
Tuesday 9 July 2013
Tunnel visions
Some years ago I got a taxi up to Leeds-Bradford airport and I fell into conversation with the driver, a friendly, chatty chap. He also happened to be a Muslim and he couldn't understand why people would want to drink alcohol when it made them behave so badly and feel so ill the day after.
I tried to explain that it's possible to drink alcohol for pleasure rather than just to get drunk - that the actual drink itself could taste pleasant and you could drink enough to reach a state of relaxation without actually getting utterly legless. He seemed doubtful. I didn't blame him.
I expect that if you don't drink yourself but spend most Friday and Saturday nights ferrying people around Leeds in varying states of inebriation, you might have a similar reaction. If you have to put up with drunken people being rude and abusive on a regular basis or witness the kind of pointless violence that often goes together with night time drinking in towns and cities, you might take a dim view of alcohol and the kind of culture and society that embraces this kind of behaviour as normal.
My taxi driver seemed bewildered by this kind of behaviour, but you can see that other people from that community might react differently. With irritation or disgust for example, or condemnation, or they might develop a sense of superiority from what they see as a debased indigenous culture.
Racial and cultural stereotyping has a long and inglorious history, but is still pervasive, even in supposedly enlightened circles.
I was slightly irked by an article some time ago in New Statesman by Alice O'Keefe, relating the experience of being undercharged for a duvet in John Lewis and the travails of a relatively financial constrained 'middle class' person when faced with the moral dilemma of whether to be honest and take it back or not.
The upshot of the article is that 'middle class' morality wins out and she dutifully goes back to the checkout, but the article finishes with the line 'Us middle class types are mugs, right?'
No is the obvious response, you just have standards you were brought up with that mean if you don't go back, you'll feel like you've let yourself down and that your parents would be very disapproving. But the problem I have is the assumption that these kind of standards are the preserve of the middle classes. That a working class person, say, wouldn't be such a 'mug' and would just take it as a piece of luck.
Obviously, you can't extrapolate from individual cases, but pretty much everyone I can think of in my immediate family (largely blue collar or very lower middle class) would have done exactly the same, and I can't imagine we are complete outliers. In fact, it would never have occured to my parents that there was a moral dilemma here at all - you would just go back, no question.
Ultimately, we are all highly influenced by our experiences and surroundings and this feeds into our view of the world. But we need to be alert to the distortions that this inevitably gives rise to. To take some examples:
All of these are pieces of a jigsaw, none completely right and none completely wrong. What we forget at our peril is that these kinds of views (including our own), and the experiences that give rise to them are the products of constrained experience - either geographically or socially or both. The challenge to them is to introduce a broader perspective from wider experience, so some kind of context can be achieved.
I tried to explain that it's possible to drink alcohol for pleasure rather than just to get drunk - that the actual drink itself could taste pleasant and you could drink enough to reach a state of relaxation without actually getting utterly legless. He seemed doubtful. I didn't blame him.
I expect that if you don't drink yourself but spend most Friday and Saturday nights ferrying people around Leeds in varying states of inebriation, you might have a similar reaction. If you have to put up with drunken people being rude and abusive on a regular basis or witness the kind of pointless violence that often goes together with night time drinking in towns and cities, you might take a dim view of alcohol and the kind of culture and society that embraces this kind of behaviour as normal.
My taxi driver seemed bewildered by this kind of behaviour, but you can see that other people from that community might react differently. With irritation or disgust for example, or condemnation, or they might develop a sense of superiority from what they see as a debased indigenous culture.
Racial and cultural stereotyping has a long and inglorious history, but is still pervasive, even in supposedly enlightened circles.
I was slightly irked by an article some time ago in New Statesman by Alice O'Keefe, relating the experience of being undercharged for a duvet in John Lewis and the travails of a relatively financial constrained 'middle class' person when faced with the moral dilemma of whether to be honest and take it back or not.
The upshot of the article is that 'middle class' morality wins out and she dutifully goes back to the checkout, but the article finishes with the line 'Us middle class types are mugs, right?'
No is the obvious response, you just have standards you were brought up with that mean if you don't go back, you'll feel like you've let yourself down and that your parents would be very disapproving. But the problem I have is the assumption that these kind of standards are the preserve of the middle classes. That a working class person, say, wouldn't be such a 'mug' and would just take it as a piece of luck.
Obviously, you can't extrapolate from individual cases, but pretty much everyone I can think of in my immediate family (largely blue collar or very lower middle class) would have done exactly the same, and I can't imagine we are complete outliers. In fact, it would never have occured to my parents that there was a moral dilemma here at all - you would just go back, no question.
Ultimately, we are all highly influenced by our experiences and surroundings and this feeds into our view of the world. But we need to be alert to the distortions that this inevitably gives rise to. To take some examples:
I regularly see coarse, drunken white people behaving badly - ergo my culture is morally superior to theirs
My only experience of working class people is watching Shameless and Eastenders - ergo all working class behave like that
I'm surrounded by people from ethnic minorities who treat me with contempt, ergo immigration is a bad thing
I work with lots of professional / hard working people from overseas, ergo immigration is a good thing with great benefits to society
All of these are pieces of a jigsaw, none completely right and none completely wrong. What we forget at our peril is that these kinds of views (including our own), and the experiences that give rise to them are the products of constrained experience - either geographically or socially or both. The challenge to them is to introduce a broader perspective from wider experience, so some kind of context can be achieved.
Friday 5 July 2013
Breaching the redoubt
The Labour Party and the Unite union are in the middle of a damaging spat over the selection of candidates in the Falkirk by-election. It's the sort of thing that plays right into the hands of the Tories and could, if not contained, cost Labour the next election.
The accusation is that Unite used tied to stack the candidate list with its 'placemen', and Dan Hodges was on the Today Programme this morning making the point that it's known Unite policy to do this. In his opinion, Unite are out of control.
Assuming the accusations of rigging are true, I'm not for a minute condoning Unite's approach which has all the hallmarks of nefarious union behaviour from the 1970s and before: dirty tricks, rigged elections, manipulation of strike votes and the rest. These are the behaviours of the bad old days that brought the world, and Maggie crashing down on union heads.
But setting aside the methods, there is an underlying problem here that is failing to be addressed and its one that runs to the heart of the current disillusionment with politics and politicians: the lack of diversity in the political establishment and, in particular, the lack of routes for people outside of the mainstream of Oxbridge and think tanks or local government, to get into national politics.
Now this problem is pervasive and not restricted to any particular political party, although I suspect it applies rather less to those on the fringes such as the Greens and UKIP, and maybe that is another reason for their relative success.
But this is also related to the issue of unpaid internships acting as a mechanism for a wealthy, connected elite to ensure their children have a fast track route into lucrative and powerful careers. It's all part of a landscape where the odds are stacked hugely in favour of a privileged few.
You can see that in this context of gross unfairness and disenfranchisement, it doesn't take much for someone with less than a cast-iron sense of morality and honesty to justify a few dirty tricks to push forward their agenda; the ends of breaching the bourgeoisie political redoubt justify the means.
The accusation is that Unite used tied to stack the candidate list with its 'placemen', and Dan Hodges was on the Today Programme this morning making the point that it's known Unite policy to do this. In his opinion, Unite are out of control.
Assuming the accusations of rigging are true, I'm not for a minute condoning Unite's approach which has all the hallmarks of nefarious union behaviour from the 1970s and before: dirty tricks, rigged elections, manipulation of strike votes and the rest. These are the behaviours of the bad old days that brought the world, and Maggie crashing down on union heads.
But setting aside the methods, there is an underlying problem here that is failing to be addressed and its one that runs to the heart of the current disillusionment with politics and politicians: the lack of diversity in the political establishment and, in particular, the lack of routes for people outside of the mainstream of Oxbridge and think tanks or local government, to get into national politics.
Now this problem is pervasive and not restricted to any particular political party, although I suspect it applies rather less to those on the fringes such as the Greens and UKIP, and maybe that is another reason for their relative success.
But this is also related to the issue of unpaid internships acting as a mechanism for a wealthy, connected elite to ensure their children have a fast track route into lucrative and powerful careers. It's all part of a landscape where the odds are stacked hugely in favour of a privileged few.
You can see that in this context of gross unfairness and disenfranchisement, it doesn't take much for someone with less than a cast-iron sense of morality and honesty to justify a few dirty tricks to push forward their agenda; the ends of breaching the bourgeoisie political redoubt justify the means.
The real value of unpaid internships
The Guardian journalist Hugh Muir was giving Tony Blair a hard time yesterday because his charity has advertised unpaid internships. He cites public indignation at the 'exploitation of the young by those who can afford to pay them' accusing Blair's charity of '..seeking help on the cheap'.
I think he's missed the point.
The superficial iniquity of getting workers for free is dwarfed by social engineering aspect of internships: the jobs, certainly those in high profile areas (usually in central London) where useful contacts and connections can be made are only open to the children of the already wealthy and well connected.
Sure, it's theoretically possible for someone from a poorer background to borrow the money or save up, but back in the real world this is highly unlikely, and they would probably be filtered out in the recruitment process in favour of more 'appropriate' candidates - i.e. the children of the wealthy and well connected.
At heart, the internship world is about patronage and preferment, about favours for potential allies and about the preservation of entrenched privilege amongst the elite.
It may even be to Tony Blair's credit that these posts are even being advertised and not stitched up for the select few without even the semblance of process. I doubt that James Caan's daughters had to go through a rigorous, impartial selection process to get their internships with the firms he's involved with.
The only silver lining is that pretty most jobs used to be allocated on this basis. At least we have the semblance of a fair system covering most recruitment activities. It may not stop unfair practices, but it sends a very strong societal message that it is unacceptable, and that at least, is the way to start changing attitudes.
The best thing the government could do to promote mobility is to ensure internships are covered by these standard employment practices, but that's hardly likely is it?
I think he's missed the point.
The superficial iniquity of getting workers for free is dwarfed by social engineering aspect of internships: the jobs, certainly those in high profile areas (usually in central London) where useful contacts and connections can be made are only open to the children of the already wealthy and well connected.
Sure, it's theoretically possible for someone from a poorer background to borrow the money or save up, but back in the real world this is highly unlikely, and they would probably be filtered out in the recruitment process in favour of more 'appropriate' candidates - i.e. the children of the wealthy and well connected.
At heart, the internship world is about patronage and preferment, about favours for potential allies and about the preservation of entrenched privilege amongst the elite.
It may even be to Tony Blair's credit that these posts are even being advertised and not stitched up for the select few without even the semblance of process. I doubt that James Caan's daughters had to go through a rigorous, impartial selection process to get their internships with the firms he's involved with.
The only silver lining is that pretty most jobs used to be allocated on this basis. At least we have the semblance of a fair system covering most recruitment activities. It may not stop unfair practices, but it sends a very strong societal message that it is unacceptable, and that at least, is the way to start changing attitudes.
The best thing the government could do to promote mobility is to ensure internships are covered by these standard employment practices, but that's hardly likely is it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)