A View From the Sticks

Manage your people like Alan Titchmarsh

2014-12-18T17:00:00.000+00:00

Over the last couple of years, I have taken up gardening. It sounds boring but there are so many aspects to it that I've realised that even people who have been doing it for decades still have things to learn.

One of the first things I've learned is the concept of “right plant, right place”. Each plant has its preferences; for moisture – does it like to sit in damp, clay soil, or does it prefer well-drained soil? Similarly many plants have a requirement for acid or alkaline soil. If you put a shade-loving plant into full sun, it’ll probably wither and quite quickly look rather sick. It won’t be having a good time, and neither will you get the best out of it.

In short, if you put a plant in conditions that it likes, and make sure it has the essentials, it can’t help but grow.

When I reflect on this, it occurs to me that this is a fairly good metaphor for leadership and management. What do I mean? Well, think about it a little. If you put a shy person into a position that requires, say, presentations to customers, then it’s not likely that you’ll get the best out of them. Put an active person who thrives on pressure and adrenaline into a routine job that rarely changes, and pretty soon that person will look just as out of place as an alpine plant in full shade.

You could argue that it’s easy for gardeners. All they have to do is look up the plant in a book and put it in the conditions that suit it, or maybe vice versa. Perhaps you want to know what’ll thrive in your shady, damp garden – so you look for plants from woodland environments. Dealing with people isn’t quite so straightforward. That’s where the skill as a leader comes in. You need to know your people well enough to know if they want well-drained soil, or cold wet clay, and whether they are happy to bathe in full sun, or better given some cover.

The metaphor extends beyond just putting the right people in the right place, though. So you've chosen your plants, and rooted them firmly in the correct soil. What then?

Well, obviously, you need to water them – but it’s not as simple as that. When they’re first planted, most plants need a really good soak to get them started off, but if they’re planted directly in the border they can usually be left alone unless it’s really dry.

The other thing that needs to be done is to keep the plants fertilised, and that doesn’t just mean dumping “manure” on them. You know what I mean. The fertiliser has to be selected for the plant too. If you’re trying to encourage lots of leafy growth, you need a fertiliser high in nitrogen. Fruit plants and vegetables need more potassium and phosphates.

If you want your plants to take a particular direction, then it may be that you need to point them in the right direction with a trellis or other such support. Whatever you do with them, the plant knows how to grow. It won’t grow any quicker or more lusciously whether you dig up the roots to appraise them, measure their growth daily, or put them into league tables along with the other plants. Neither will they respond to being shouted at or threatened with disciplinary action. If the conditions are right, the plant will grow.

Stephen Covey, in his book The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, referred to the “Law of the Farm”. There is a natural order to things. You can’t sow seeds and then somehow farm “smarter, not harder” to make them come up the next day. You can’t get more carrots from fewer seeds.

Yet when it comes to looking after our people, what do we commonly see? People put into positions that they are plainly unsuited to. Employees that are insufficiently fertilised, or given the wrong sort of fertiliser. Some are even not watered when they need it. There will even be some people who are allowed to grow plenty, but in the wrong direction, or – even worse – left to dangle without any support whatsoever.

Yet despite this neglect in the most obvious ways, we see plenty of examples where people have their roots dug up to see how fast they are growing, or having their growth unfairly compared to a totally different type of plant. Would you even consider punishing a slow growing foxglove? Or insist that bluebells flower all year long?

Why Democracy is broken in the UK

2014-07-11T08:11:00.001+01:00

Today, July 10^th, sees a public sector strike across the country in protest about, well, everything really. It is accompanied by the usual objections about union turnout. What seems to be new this time around, reeking of desperation, are the objections about the timing of mandates.

Francis Maude appeared on Radio 4’s Today programme this morning complaining that the NUT last went to ballot its members two years ago on strike action. Funny that, because I seem to recall the last General Election being two years before that. Is Maude seriously suggesting that before each Bill is put before Parliament, that we need to have a General Election? The answer is obvious, of course he isn’t. The rhetoric employed by every Government since 1979 seems to be that unions must not take decisions that are unpopular with Government, and that Government will change the law about this if necessary.

The biggest and most ridiculous of all of the usual complaints about strikes, as well as being the most frequently employed, is that of turnout. It would appear to be a basic plank of democracy that when a vote is called for, the opportunity to vote is given to all qualified & relevant persons. Those that feel strongly either way will vote, those that don’t may choose not to. The motion is carried by the side with the largest majority. It’s a concept which is simple enough, and fair, and that’s why people have fought for it over the centuries. Why should any other model be applied to trade unions? The fact of the matter is, as Dave Prentis of Unison said on Today this morning too, Unions got a 70% response until the Thatcher government made strike ballots by post a compulsory mechanism. The Tory way with Unions is to tie both their arms behind their backs, challenge them to a fight, and then complain when the Union starts to kick them.

There has been lots of talk about thresholds for strike vote turnout recently. Boris Johnson has weighed in repeatedly (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10074549/Boris-Johnson-Coalition-has-failed-to-bring-in-anti-strike-laws.html) despite his last election victory being based on a 38% turnout. The hypocrisy from the Tories goes even deeper though. In 2012 the “flagship” policy of Police and Crime Commissioners fell flat with voters as “fewer than 15% of voters turned out in the 41 English and Welsh police areas electing a PCC, a peacetime low.” http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-20374139

Surely even the Tories would have to concede that the election of a Police and Crime Commissioner is more significant to the daily business of everyday people, than a single day of strike action by public sector workers?

Even if we ignore the hypocrisy firmly embedded in the Tory argument, if we try to contemplate what would happen if the strike thresholds were introduced, what would that look like? If the threshold was not met, what would happen? Would the vote have to be run again? Would the vote be banned from being run again for a specified time period? Neither seems very attractive.

The other central plank of democracy is that what is good for one is good for all, in that the voting model is common across all systems, whoever they shall benefit. On that basis, let’s imagine what would happen if no politician could be elected without at least a 50% turnout. Every seat in Parliament. Every local Council seat. Suppose in next year’s General Election, half of the seats had a 51% turnout on average, and the other half had a 49% turnout on average. What would Parliament look like then? Presumably the votes would have to be re-run for all seats, so that the votes for the remaining seats weren’t influenced by the outcomes of the first half. Imagine the complaints from elected MPs! Supposing that Parliament was allowed to continue while elections were rescheduled, who would be the Prime Minister while we waited for the other 300+ seats to be decided? This is rather patently a shambles waiting to happen, and equally obviously is why it would never be implemented.

Often, when we see issues being debated in the Commons on TV, the number of members on each side is in single figures. What is the turnout, on average, for legislation in Parliament, and how can we have confidence in these votes when so few members are present to debate the Bill they are voting on?

The big issue, which no politician dare express or verbalise, is that politicians want us to realise that THEY are in charge, and it’s one rule for them and another for the rest of us. They want us to be governed by rules which they would abhor for themselves. Occasionally, this trait is expressed more clearly than others, and Theresa May seems to be the person most likely to leak it. The appointment of Elizabeth Butler-Sloss to head up the inquiry on child abuse within Westminster is a clear example. It must have been harder to find someone so obviously connected to this issue, than it was to find someone with no perceivable link. It was the same when Tom Winsor was appointed the Chief Inspector of HMIC. Winsor had no credible skills or background that made him suitable for the role of Chief Inspector, other than the fact that he had recently written a report – ghost written by Government – that decimated police pay and conditions and infuriated serving officers. The appointment of Winsor was solely to show the police who was in charge. The Butler-Sloss appointment, like Winsor, is a clear two-fingered gesture to the public, and it says “We are in charge. We can do what we like, and there’s nothing you can do to stop it.”

Empty Threats

2014-02-03T16:32:00.003+00:00

A few evenings ago, I watched "Made In Dagenham" for the first time. If you've never seen it, the film is a fictional account of a true event; the struggle of female machinists at Ford's Dagenham plant for equal pay. From a distance of more than 45 years, it seems incredible that anyone would think that it was ever acceptable for women to earn half the wages of men doing similarly skilled jobs.

However what caught my attention was the rhetoric employed by one of the characters, Robert Tooley (played by Richard Schiff). I am, of course, aware that this is fiction and that the dialogue has been dramatised. I can well imagine though that similar sentiments were expressed by the real protagonists representing Ford.

Tooley is a Ford executive who is flown over from Detroit to break the Dagenham strike. He realises quickly that he needs to undermine the support the women are receiving from the (mainly male) union. Tooley tells Monty Taylor, one of the union stewards, that if Ford pulls out of the UK, then there will be no members paying union subscriptions and he'll be out of a job. Tooley also flatly states that businesses can't afford to pay men and women equally, and that they will go bankrupt if forced to. Taylor takes immediate steps to marginalise the female strikers.

Eventually, with the plant at a standstill, the Employment Secretary Barbara Castle meets with Tooley. With a voice laden with impending doom, Tooley tells Castle that if the female strikers get their way, Ford will no longer be able to produce cars at a profit. Tooley issues an explicit threat that Ford will make their cars elsewhere.

History records that Castle helped resolve the strike, bringing the women's pay to 92% of the men's rate almost immediately, and that this dispute paved the way for the Equal Pay Act of 1970. The Act came into effect in 1975.

Contrary to the expectations of the prophets of doom, the sun rose the next morning, and fell beneath the western sky the following evening. Ford carried on making cars, in the UK, and at a profit. With the passage of the 1970 Act, businesses up and down the country continued to function despite paying women equal pay for equal work.

I suspect that two things worked in the favour of the machinists. The first was that there was a Labour government, which until the 1990s was proud of its working class roots and would stand up for the rights of the ordinary worker. Secondly, Barbara Castle was an extraordinary woman with extraordinary conviction. A lesser person, male or female, might not have dared arrange such a radical solution to the strike. I have no doubt that a Conservative government would not have produced such a favourable outcome.

Why is this relevant today? Earlier I drew your attention to the rhetoric. We can see now with hindsight that this was not an objective business case talking, but instead it was greed taking priority over principle and using threats to bolster its case. It is doubtful whether Ford really would have pulled out of the UK. I suspect that when it came down to it, the logistics didn't stack up. Ford knew that they had a lucrative customer base in the UK, and that whilst it would have been possible to supply the UK market with cars from overseas, it wouldn't have been practical with the required volume.

The point I am making here - albeit perhaps not too clearly - is that we are hearing similar threats made by various parties with vested interests. Banks claim that their best employees will leave if their bonuses are capped or stopped, and other similarly impartial commentators have voiced the opinion that Labour's proposed reinstatement of the 50p tax band is anti-business and will cause businesses to leave the UK. These are the same people who claimed that the introduction of the minimum wage in 1997 would cause a recession. It didn't.

Maybe we should just take their threats, like Tooley's, with a pinch of salt. Greed should never come before principle. It won't happen today though. I couldn't honestly say whether with the current Government it is caused by greed or cowardice. Maybe both. Neither serves the interests of the country.

A Word on Unqualified Teachers

2013-10-30T12:39:00.005+00:00

The "unqualified teacher" row has been around for years. Independent (i.e. private) schools have used teachers without teaching qualifications for years. A degree in the subject you are teaching is often enough to secure a position at such a school.

However, Nick Clegg has recently fanned the flames of this debate by openly criticising the policies of his Cabinet colleague Michael Gove.

There are, of course, supporters of the unqualified teacher model. One could argue for the better results claimed from private schools. Martin Stephen of the Telegraph makes a good argument for passion and experience over mere qualifications.

However, to solely use the results that private schools obtain as justification of teachers without Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) is fallacious. There are a whole host of other factors which influence these results, and these are well articulated by a new teacher experiencing a private school for the first time here.

As with a lot of public sector jobs, teaching is a profession that attracts a lot of ill-founded criticism and an excess of confidence that "anyone can do it". One user on Twitter even announced that he "could teach kids history in my sleep & I am not a qualified teacher". That may indeed be the case, but there are several things wrong with this statement.

Firstly, and most obviously, teaching a narrow band of one subject to a group of willing children can be done on a one-off or irregular basis. Many schools use specialists in a given topic to come into schools and speak to children for a session or two. That does not make them teachers. It might seem to be splitting hairs to say that "to teach" and "to be a teacher" is not the same thing, but it is nonetheless true. To be a teacher requires a consistent level of tolerance, dedication and energy that few are willing to give. Teaching is truly a vocation rather than a job. It is also true that there are people employed as teachers who are a poor fit for the demands of the role. For them, it is just a job.

It may also seem to be fussy to ask "and how many of the kids in your class would absorb the knowledge you gave"? Ironically, some of the most vocal critics of teachers seem to be the best educated themselves. Their most recent experience of teaching would have been during their time at University, on the receiving end of an almost wholly didactic and one-way exchange of information. At this point, it would be useful to point out that children (usually the under 16s) and adults learn in different ways. Someone who can't explain the difference between andragogy and pedagogy shouldn't be allowed anywhere near an educational institution. For example, I hold qualifications to teach adults in Further Education, but this would not, nor should it, qualify me for teaching children of any age. A fundamental part of teaching is the acceptance that individuals, adults or children, learn in different ways. My experience here for children is extremely limited, but, for instance, some adults will happily learn all they need from reading a book, whereas another adult needs to learn in a more practical environment. Good teaching recognises that these different learning styles exist, identifies them in individuals, and structures the teaching matter to suit.

It's true that modern teaching methods can be perceived as quite prescriptive, but teaching should reflect the best of the current thinking in education. This is intended not only to give each child access to the best methods, but to give a consistent application of them regardless of the area of the country you live in, or your economic background. We can question, rightly, whether the methods currently taught to teachers are the most effective methods. Many teachers may say that they are not, however the point is that a consistency is brought to teaching. Continue research into teaching methods, by all means, and update the model with the best of the current thinking. Let every child benefit from this development. Unqualified teachers risks an uneven application of this skill. Even if the most effective teacher in the UK happens to be unqualified, we need to learn, absorb, and distribute the reasons for this success, not isolate it.

There is an irony at the heart of this issue that I have not seen discussed elsewhere. Do we really have an Education Secretary whose policy it is to disregard the qualifications it has itself created and overseen? What message does this send to children and young people of today? "Get your qualifications, children, and in future another Minister will singlehandedly render those qualifications irrelevant?"

If it is really true that the outcomes from private schools are better, if social factors can somehow be isolated, then perhaps we need to determine why this is. Whilst it is true that private schools use teachers who do not hold QTS, many private sector teachers qualified in the state sector. This gives an academic rigour to teaching methods which further benefit from the lack of interference from unqualified & ignorant busybodies such as the Department for Education. Here's an analogy; you can be a qualified and competent gardener, but if someone comes along who insists on digging up the seeds to see how they are growing, then it's likely the end results won't be great.

On the other hand, you could just shrug your shoulders and say that unqualified teachers are the natural and inevitable outcome from a Government of arrogant, privileged chancers who think that they know better than a qualified expert.

Corruption By Any Other Name

2013-04-30T12:19:00.000+01:00

You wouldn’t know if from the news coverage, but the other night the NHS was effectively privatised. The vote in the Lords was carried by 254 votes to 146. The following morning, the dangers of fizzy drinks made it to the BBC radio news, but the privatisation of the NHS was not newsworthy enough and was only a minor link on the BBC news website.

The National Health Service is a treasured institution in this country, as Owen Jones eloquently detailed here. That the Health Service has been privatised is scandalous enough. That it was voted into private ownership by Peers (including Labour Peers)that have business interests in healthcare companies that stand to benefit from a privatised NHS is nothing short of a national scandal. In any other country, we would call this corruption. In private sector business this is referred to as a “conflict of interest” and is strictly banned by companies with even the most tenuous grasp of ethics. Lords and MPs have a duty to register their business interests in the Register of Members Interests, but there seems to be nothing to prevent them from voting on issues in which there is clearly a conflict of interest. The BBC coverage doesn’t mention this conflict of ethics.

Even during the debate, Health Minister Earl Howe said “There is no Government agenda to privatise NHS services – quite the contrary.”

The Oxford Dictionaries defines “privatize” as “transfer (a business, industry, or service) from public to private ownership and control”. Whilst you could argue that the NHS remains, for the moment anyway, in public ownership but if private companies are providing the services and equipment, they almost certainly have control.

It is a commonly heard statement made by politicians of all parties about the NHS remaining “free at the point of delivery”. This is a point that may be a comfort to the public. However, “free at the point of delivery” does not mean “not for profit”. Private healthcare is free at the point of delivery if you are a member of a private scheme. Just to illustrate the pointlessness of this phrase; water, gas and electricity are all free at the point of delivery. Whilst some people still have pre-paid gas and electricity meters, I don’t think there’s anyone pushing 50p into a tap to get water out of it.

I have never understood the logic behind outsourcing, let alone privatisation. I simply do not see how it can be cheaper for one organisation to outsource work to another, for the second company to make a profit, than it was for the first organisation to do the work in the first place. This seems to be based on the myth that the public sector is slow, bloated and inefficient, whilst the private sector is lean, fast and efficient. I’ve worked in the private sector for over 20 years now, and I’ve volunteered in the public sector. Yes, there is a degree of waste and inefficiency in the public sector, but it is a fallacy to think that it does not exist in the private sector. The Olympic security farce involving G4S should have banished this view. In a previous piece, I wrote about how public services need to be effective first, and efficient second. Nowhere is this more true than in health.

The central concept of the NHS was clear. The Health service will be available to all and funded entirely from taxation. When Bevan created the Health service in 1948 – at a time when national debt was more than twice as high compared to GDP as it is now – it was never intended to make a profit, not least for the people who voted to introduce competition. Last week, the Lords effectively voted to stuff public money into their own pockets.

Politics? It's just religion in an ill-fitting suit

2013-04-15T13:00:00.000+01:00

Every few years, an event occurs that explains some of the more complex social constructs. It was the sense of community and patriotism in Britain in the 1940s that kept the country together during World War 2, and stopped it descending into a chaotic free for all. You could reasonably argue that neither exist in Britain today, and ask what would happen if we had to relive the Blitz today.

It’s been said, and is actually now something of a cliché, that the inauguration of John F. Kennedy brought an optimism to the world and especially America that resulted in initiatives like the Peace Corps and Freedom Riders. A whole generation, used to being directed and controlled by their elders, suddenly realised that it was within their own gift to take command of their destiny, and forge their own path. The Torch had indeed been passed, as Kennedy wished it to be known.

History also now records Kennedy’s assassination in 1963 as the point where that same empowered generation lost their innocence and their trust in Government. That encouragement and enthusiasm had the shroud pulled over it in Dallas, and in its place emerged bitterness and cynicism for which Vietnam and Watergate became the perfect outlets.

The release from prison of Nelson Mandela in 1990 was deserved reward for all those who campaigned not only for his freedom, but for the end of Apartheid. It illustrated – as the Civil Rights struggle had done 25 years previously – that small ideas become big movements. They gather momentum that carries all before it. Nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come.

Of course, this past week has seen the death of Baroness Thatcher. It was predictable that there would be strong feelings expressed on both sides of the debate. No one, when asked what they thought of Mrs Thatcher, ever replied “Meh…”

To be honest, I’ve avoided almost all of the media coverage. Not just because of my views of her, but because it was always going to be endlessly and depressingly repetitive, and if I wanted that I’d watch EastEnders. I’ve been vaguely following on Twitter the reaction to the coverage, and it’s been even more rabid than I expected.

Ever single-minded and to hell with the consequences, Thatcher had the gall to die over a Parliamentary recess. This left Cameron in something of a quandary. He recognised that after incurring the swivel-headed wrath of the Conservatives over the equal marriage legislation that he badly needed to mend some fences with the party and its members. If he waited until Parliament reconvened the following Monday to lead tributes to the former Prime Minister, he’d have been accused of not being sufficiently respectful. He had to overcome the scepticism of Speaker John Bercow who rightly concluded that it would be unprecedented to recall Parliament for such an event rather than a national emergency. The request was granted on the basis that tributes be discussed in the form of Parliamentary debate, which allowed some of the speeches from Labour members to be extremely critical of Thatcher and her legacy. This did not go down well with the Conservatives, especially Sir Tony Baldry who asked Speaker Bercow to intervene. Bercow, himself a Tory, showed remarkable neutrality to insist that everything was in order and members be free to criticise as well as praise.

Ultimately, something occurred to me which explained the fanatical reactions, and even the reactions to the reactions. Politics is just religion with statistics. Statistics instead of parables and ancient tomes. It is nothing more than an ongoing argument about what will happen, what is happening, and what has happened – and all done with liberal use of carefully selected statistics, expertly nuanced in order to make one’s case more persuasive. Each political persuasion would have you believe that their version is the only real Truth, and that they – and only they – are the chosen ones. This religious zeal inevitably causes historical revisionism. On Radio 4’s PM programme, Thatcher biographer Charles Moore objected bitterly that the BBC was repeatedly referring to her as “divisive”. Someone who has – by definition – studied her life and career in depth would have known that the Party was split into “Wets” and “Thatcherites” long before there was a leadership election in 1990 and she was dramatically flung out of Downing Street by her own party. If that’s not divisive then I don’t know what is.

Could it be that as society becomes more secular, it gets more political?

The analogy seems to work remarkably well. Outgoing Governments are metaphorically nailed to the Cross, and held up as not only the example but the cause of all that is wrong in the country today. Each party has its diehards – the real zealots, and at any opportunity will try to convert any poor soul unfortunate enough to have been indoctrinated with the wrong version of the Truth. Every few years, a person comes along who has sufficient personality and vision (although usually more of the former and rather less of the latter) to cause otherwise normal thinking voters to abandon their cause and cross to the Dark Side. Thatcher was one of these, and so was Tony Blair. Cameron isn’t, which is why after thirteen years of Labour and the country arguably in a poor condition, he still couldn’t win a majority. For what it's worth, I put Ed Miliband in the same category as Cameron in this regard.

This is clearly a trick missed by the ancients. Just think how lethal Jesus would have been armed with PowerPoint slides illustrating the number of litres of water turned into wine. The lack of room at the Inn would have been a perfect platform to criticise the social housing provision in Jerusalem. Maybe the Disciples were actually the first Think-tank? Perhaps the Last Supper would have been roundly criticised as a bunch of ne'er do well benefit cheats living it up at the expense of society. Say it quietly, but the Bible might even have been the first product of what we now know of as Spin Doctors.

Robes and dog collars have been replaced in today's society by an ill-fitting suit bought on expenses.

Who knows who will be the next Messiah of British Politics?

A Life Too Ordinary?

2013-04-11T13:13:00.000+01:00

A psychologist would probably tell me it's my age. Mid life crisis or something like that. Last night I had a cold chill run down my spine as I looked ahead into old age. Before I describe how and why this happened, I need to rewind a little.

I started playing cricket at about 9. As I grew up, got taller and stronger, I became a useful-ish fast bowler for middling-to-poor club sides in Somerset. I could bat a little too, when luck was on my side. I enjoyed playing, knowing that I was playing at the top of the range that my talent, such as it was, would allow. For various reasons - girls, work etc., I stopped playing at about 22. At some stages I'd been playing four or five games a week. I'd grown tired of the commitment and wanted to be able to spend my weekends how I wished.

My awareness of my increasing age - and waistline - encouraged me to have a comeback at the age of 37. I was keen to play again, even though I knew I wasn't fit. I suffered through the pulled hamstrings and backache and completed a season for my local village side. I still had all my old kit, even the broken bat that my father had given me for my 16th birthday. It was no use, but I kept it regardless. It dawned on me one day that not only had the famous West Indian bowler whose name endorsed my boots died some years previously, but the boots themselves were literally older than several of my team mates.

Here I must digress to a little anecdote that amused me greatly at the time. If you go to B&Q (other DIY stores are available) and buy a packet of screws, the label will say on it "average contents - 50" and you think "well, that's reasonable. The packets are machine fed, so maybe there are a few packets with 49 screws, and a few with 51. No big deal." Anyway, so I went to replace my aged boots, and bought a sparkling pair of new Puma boots from the sports shop in town. As I got them home, and opened the box, I saw this printed on it;

"Average contents; 2"

My mind was filled with visions of people opening the box to find, to their astonishment, an inexplicable third boot, whilst elsewhere some poor unfortunate was having to hobble out to bat with only one boot on.

The contrast in age was also apparent one day when I was batting with one of these younger lads. He was cross that I had refused a sharp run from his batting. "Come on Martin," he said, "there was a run there!"

"Not at my age there wasn't...." came the reply.

Anyway. After that first season, I realised that I was no longer able to play at the levels that I had set for myself in my teens. They say that it's common for a professional's eyes to have "gone" around the 38-40 mark. Maybe this was why my batting had gone to pot, and my reactions slowed noticeably. Regardless of the reason, I decided that I would be unable to invest the time in order to bring myself back up to my own standards, and rather than frustrate myself every weekend, I would stop playing altogether. I sold all my equipment on eBay and I've never looked back or been back to watch the team play.

The reason for all this rambling is that last night I was watching "24 Hours in A&E" on Channel 4. They had a chap called Frank who was in hospital having fallen at home and not been able to get up. In transpired that Frank was 90. I was shocked. I said to my wife that he looked at least 15-20 years younger and what remarkable shape he was in for a man of his age.

Then the chill set in. I've often felt that I hope to die before becoming an encumbrance on my wife or my children. However for some reason, whilst watching Frank this feeling was palpable. The thought occurred to me "what happens if - at whatever age it occurs - I get that feeling of frustration that I can no longer do the things that I want to be able to do? That feeling that caused me to abandon playing cricket because I could no longer emulate my teenage self? What if I'm not as able as Frank?"

It was a sobering moment, and even more than twelve hours afterwards, while I write this, it's emotional. How do you adjust to these things?

Maybe what made it worse was that Frank was still full of life and character at 90. He has more of that than I do now, at 40. Frank used to run a circus and had a colourful life that the hospital staff queued up to ask him about.

Me? I wrote some dodgy software. What I wouldn't give to feel at 40 the way Frank feels at 90.

The Root of the Problem

2012-12-21T12:31:00.000+00:00

It might appear that there was never a time when Plebgate and Andrew Mitchell weren't in the news. One of the most tawdry episodes in public life for years just keeps rolling along, with the developments in the last week of two arrests made in relation to the evidence of the confrontation.

It would appear that politicians past and present have no limit to the hypocrisy and spin that they will go to in order to make their point. The Newsnight piece on Plebgate last night was another case in point. Even though Mike Pannett and the new PCC of Surrey, Kevin Hurley did their best to add balance, there was a great deal of bias shown. Even the presenter Kirsty Wark resorted to a gratuitous snipe about the average wage of police officers being over £40k. It'd be a bit like saying that the average wage of Tesco employees is £40k. That might be correct mathematically but it's a simply misleading way of representing pay levels. I don't know how Newsnight arrived at that figure but I would wager that it is statistically distorted by higher wages of Chief Inspector and above.

Even if there are police constables out there earning over £40k then that's because they work (at a guess) 500-750 hours a year of directed overtime on top of normal hours. Police work doesn't pay a shift premium as such, unlike other jobs out there, so now ask yourself - would you work on average a 60 hour week of shifts, getting sworn at, spat at, punched, kicked, stabbed and shot at - for £40k? Also, and this was the point Newsnight conveniently glossed over, would you start doing that for £19k?

Lord Baker mentioned the police becoming politicised. Well fancy that, a public service that fights back in the face of idiotic and ruthless idealogical reform. Lord Baker mentioned the conduct and political conduct of the Federation. Oh, the irony. From a former MP.

(At least 7 MPs have been convicted of criminal offences in the last 2 years to my knowledge, not including the House of Lords. That's a little over 1%. Equivalent to around 1400 convictions of police officers. Where's the moral high ground now?)

Lord Baker mentioned on Newsnight that the police don't like this Government. I can't imagine a greater misconception. It's not that police don't like this Government, it's that the police recognise that this Government doesn't understand the job, doesn't understand what it takes, and doesn't respect those that do it.

Exhibit 1 is this speech in 2006 by David Cameron. In it we find these gems:

"The truth is we won't deal with crime until we reform the police."
"You can't be tough on crime unless you're tough on police reform."

Ah. So never mind what causes crime in the first place, or any sort of cohesive social policy. It's the police's fault. We really shouldn't expect much more from a man who's spent the first half of his time as Prime Minister blaming everything on Labour. People are now having to use food banks (up sixfold since 2010) and South Yorkshire police report an increase in people shoplifting basic provisions like food. Never mind that. That's Big Society in action. Let's reform the police instead.

"This year, each police officer, on average, will make under 10 arrests. That's not even one a month."

Here we start to see the real nub of the problem; the lack of understanding of the role. I suspect, but I don't know, that he simply took the number of arrests and divided it by the number of officers. Quite apart from the fact that arrests do not define police work, there are large numbers of officers who are not in roles which make arrests. Everyone above the rank of Inspector, for instance. Officers recovering from long-term injuries in the line of duty. Officers in specialist roles.

"Police officers are relatively well paid - better, in fact, than teachers or nurses."

I don't want to put teachers or nurses down. They do a fantastic job. My wife is a teacher. But teachers don't work shifts. Nurses do, but they are relatively unlikely to be killed or seriously assaulted at work. Neither treads a fine line between putting criminals in the dock, or ending up there themselves. You could in fact argue, that a police officer has to have parts of the role of teacher and nurse, plus a few others besides. The Tories don't get that though. Police, teachers, nurses are - as far as this Government are concerned - a financial drag on the economy.

"Some officers today have second jobs. In one force, as many as one in fifteen are in this position."

Notice the perjorative language. President Obama would praise hard-working Americans who struggle on, holding down two, three or four jobs in order to pay their way. Not here. Not if you're a police officer. That's bad, somehow. And in order to prove it, he'll mention that less than 7% of officers, in one of forty-three forces, are holding down second jobs. And of course, he doesn't mention that this is usually with the written consent of the Chief Constable.

"So the fifth priority in reforming police pay and conditions should be to insist that policing is a full time occupation in all but exceptional cases."

Like, for example, being an MP? Or a Police and Crime Commissioner? His government have allowed Police and Crime Commissioners to take a salary from the public purse of around £70k per year, and they don't even insist it's a full time role to run the police!

"So enhanced entry schemes should make it possible for talented people and professionals to join the police later in their careers and at all ranks."

Lest we forget, the Hillsborough disaster was caused by the incompetence of the scene commanders in their mismanagement of the crowds, and was covered up by senior managers too by removing any criticism of management from officers statements. That's going to improve by parachuting in the winner of the 2013 Apprentice is it? Again, they don't understand the role.

Possibly the most important thing to note is this: the speech was given in 2006, before the financial crash. At a time when debt as a percentage of GDP was lower than when Labour came to office. Public finances were in good shape, relatively speaking. So these reforms are not about cutting the deficit. They never were. This was always going to happen, crash or no crash.

Exhibit 2 is Theresa May. National Policing Conference, 29th June 2010

"But targets don’t fight crime; targets hinder the fight against crime. In scrapping the confidence target and the policing pledge, I couldn’t be any clearer about your mission: it isn’t a thirty-point plan; it is to cut crime. No more, and no less."

16th August 2011 just after the riots around the country.

"As Home Secretary, I've been clear from the beginning that the test of the effectiveness of the police, the sole objective against which they will be judged, the way in which communities should be able to hold them to account, is their success in cutting crime. I haven't asked the police to be social workers, I haven't set them any performance indicators, and I haven't given them a thirty point plan, I've told them to cut crime."

In the same speech, I found this:-

"This is one reason why, in addition to his work on pay and conditions, I commissioned Tom Winsor to produce a second report into the long-term future of policing. As part of this second report, I asked him to consider how we can introduce direct entry into the police - including the most senior police ranks - so that suitably qualified outsiders may apply."

Note, not "should we", or "might it be a good idea if" or "will it damage the service" but "how can we do it"! Winsor's much trumpeted "independent" report was nothing but a front to see how they could crowbar their preconceived notions into the service.

This is where ignorance turns to arrogance;

"Earlier this year, when I scrapped the last remaining police targets, I told commanding officers: "I couldn't be any clearer about your mission: it isn't a thirty-point plan; it is to cut crime."

One chief constable, who has since retired, told the media afterwards that they only spent about a third of their time dealing with crime, and that the job wasn't as simple as "just catching criminals."

Well I couldn't be any clearer: cutting crime is the only test of a police force and catching criminals is their job.

And when people have the power to hold the police to account through elections, any commissioner or chief constable who doesn't cut crime will soon find themselves looking for a new job."

So - May has been told. "It's not that simple", from the horse's mouth. A Chief Constable. She acknowledges that she's been told. But she ignores the experience and opinion of those who know, and presses on regardless.

During the recent floods, police intervened to keep people safe. But according to Mrs May, that's not their job. Their job is to cut crime. No more, no less.

And in this year's speech to the Police Federation Conference, in the context of mental health;

"And we have also agreed to consider the transfer of commissioning of all police health services to the NHS as soon as possible. That means health professionals will look after mentally ill offenders and victims, not the police – because that is their job, not yours.

I don’t want police officers doing other people’s jobs - the police are crime-fighters and that is the job I want them doing."

Again - a clear demonstration that she does not understand the job. When a person is suspected of involvement in a crime, it's the crime (the police's job, according to Mrs May) that gets priority. Any information regarding mental health comes later. Sometimes much later. So - does the police officer walk away at this point? Of course not. It's this kind of "fine on paper but lacking in detail, and unworkable in practice" that we are seeing more and more.

"But the crime fighters will remain police officers, patrolling will not be privatised and policing will remain a public service, accountable to the people and carried out by consent.

It will only ever be police officers who make arrests; it will only ever be police officers who lead investigations; and it will only ever be police officers who direct policing operations." [emphasis added]

Patrolling has already been, in part, privatised. Police forces have been, and continue to, put work out to private tender which includes patrolling, detaining suspects, and investigative work. Notice the neat little qualifiers "lead" and "direct" in that quotation.

Going back to Newsnight - it's not that the police don't "like" this Government, as Lord Baker put it. The police recognise that they are fighting for their very survival. Fighting against an arrogant Government that does not understand the job and refuses to listen. Public safety is being put at risk. If the police did not fight against that, they would not be doing their jobs.

Proposal for Performance Related Pay Scores F

2012-12-17T11:57:00.001+00:00

Who takes the greater credit? The worker who sows the seed, or the one who harvests the fruit? If the environmental conditions are too wet, or drought sets in and the crop fails, has the farmer been any less diligent? If these questions seem too ludicrous to contemplate, consider them in the context of performance-related pay for teachers. This is the latest idea from Education Secretary Michael Gove to “reform” the performance of teachers.

Michael Gove is just as qualified to be Education Secretary as I am. That is, not at all. I never cease to be amazed by how successions of Secretaries of State insist on meddling & interfering in professions that they plainly know nothing about. Although the Coalition has a spectacularly wide spectrum of incompetent Ministers, actually this determination to aggravate, agitate and generally get in the way is a characteristic of most Governments. The last Labour Government certainly had its fair share of guilty fiddlers.

It is hard to know exactly where to start with Gove’s latest brainwave. It has so many holes in it, the concept is virtually see-through. Firstly, I don’t imagine that too many people join the teaching profession with dreams of fast cars, riches and international travel. Historically, like most of the other Public sector professions, teaching was considered a vocation; a way of life. This may be a difficult concept for any politicians, let alone Tories, to grasp. Alien as it may be to Gove and his cohorts, there are people to whom the contribution to society is primary, and fiscal concerns are secondary. This is not to canonize teachers or to paint them as beyond the lure of pecuniary reward – after all, they have families and needs as we all do. My point is that these are intelligent, well-meaning and articulate people. If they had wished a high-paying job above all else, they would have worked in a bank, or anywhere other than in a school.

If ever there was a situation which was ripe for visitation by the law of unintended consequences, this is indeed it. There are any number of ways one might predict this playing out, and probably a few that we won’t predict. Nonetheless, permit me to hazard a guess at a few probable outcomes.

Schools in deprived areas will find it harder than ever before to recruit, and retain, teaching staff. If a sizeable percentage of their income is directly linked to results, then teachers will want to be at the best schools in the most affluent areas.

Schools in deprived areas will find that they are only able to attract newly qualified teachers, who will depart to a better school at the first opportunity, or teachers with longer service who aren’t good enough to get interviews at leading schools.

Any extra-curricular or sporting activities which are currently staffed by teachers out of goodwill, will cease. These will be replaced by work aimed at professional development for the staff, or work for the pupils. There are already complaints about children being taught to pass exams, instead of being given an education, and why does this happen? It’s caused by the pressure created by school league tables. Now, these same chattering classes are driving education further along that road that they say they despise.

What is patently clear from all of this is that Gove, the Department of Education, and the Conservative Party, do not understand education. Education is not a factory process, where you take some raw material, apply some rigid processes which have been shorn of all flexibility in the name of efficiency, and at the age of 16 out pops a rounded, well-educated young adult. Education defies any simple analogies, but the best that comes to mind is that of a relay race. Each teacher that touches the life of a child, runs with them for a year before passing the baton onto the next teacher. It’s true that not every race comes out as any of the participants might have wanted it, but the key thing is that it is a team effort. Each person can run the race of their life, but that does not guarantee results. If Gove was running a factory, he would be poking each employee with an electric prod whilst taking a cleaver to their pay, terms and conditions. He would make a Victorian workhouse owner blush.

Alistair Campbell stated on Radio 4’s “Any Questions” on Friday and wrote in his blog (http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/2012/12/15/the-media-love-michael-gove-but-the-any-questions-audience-was-not-so-gullible/) on Saturday that Gove was deliberately attempting to provoke a confrontation with teaching unions in order to further his own political profile, whatever the effects on children’s education. That may or may not be the case, but Gove is well on course to becoming the most despised and notoriously incompetent Education Secretary in history.

Who Needs A Time Machine?

2012-12-10T12:33:00.003+00:00

It's often said in politics, as well as other areas, that hindsight is 20/20 vision. The meaning is that when we see where we've ended up, it's sometimes obvious that we've taken the wrong turn somewhere.

It's usually the defence of the politician with egg on their face from whatever decision they made that has just been shown to be totally the wrong choice. More often than not, it can be a fair point. Knowing where you'll end up when you take a choice is typically guesswork to a greater or lesser extent.

Not only do you not know where you'll end up, you also usually have no way of knowing what would have happened had you done nothing or even remained on the same course. In this I am reminded of the tale sometimes titled "Appointment in Samarra":

A merchant in Baghdad sends his servant to the marketplace for provisions. Shortly, the servant comes home white and trembling and tells him that in the marketplace he was jostled by a woman, whom he recognized as Death, and she made a threatening gesture. Borrowing the merchant's horse, he flees at top speed to Samarra, a distance of about 75 miles (125 km), where he believes Death will not find him. The merchant then goes to the marketplace and finds Death, and asks why she made the threatening gesture. She replies, "That was not a threatening gesture, it was only a start of surprise. I was astonished to see him in Baghdad, for I had an appointment with him tonight in Samarra."

However, in the case of the UK Economy, we are indeed blessed with a map and other tools. You remember this don't you?

It's the display for the Time Circuits in the famous DeLorean time machine from the Back To The Future movies. It showed the time in the place you were heading to, the place where you are now, and the place where you were.

Now read this brilliant article from the New Yorker about Austerity Economics, if you haven't already. It explains that the US strategy compared to the UK strategy amounts to a natural experiment, with the simple conclusion: Austerity doesn't work. It's the Economic equivalent of the Emporer's New Clothes.

In our Back To The Future example, the place we left in 2010 was called "Economic Growth", the place where we are now in 2012 is "Triple-Dip City" and the place we are heading to, if we remain on the same path, is known as "Portugal".

I feel truly sorry for the Greek and Portuguese people. At least our austerity wounds were inflicted upon us by our own (admittedly, unelected) Government. The wounds that are bleeding Europe dry are mostly being inflicted by the German Government. In effect, the Germans are holding countries like Greece and Portugal to ransom. If this was being played out as a film script, it might go like this. Every week, the captor says "I will continue to feed you only if you cut off one of your fingers". What happens when the hostage has no more fingers remaining?

John F. Kennedy: still relevant today after almost 50 years

2012-12-03T14:44:00.001+00:00

The Eternal Flame at the grave of John F. Kennedy.

Arlington National Cemetary, Washington D.C.

November 22nd 2012 marked the 49th anniversary of the notorious passing of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas. Kennedy's inaugural address contained several phrases that are now well-known, but it also included some less familiar remarks which are as relevant today as when they were first spoken in January 1961. Some of those phrases look eerily back from the page, with our knowledge of what has come to pass since their utterance. You can find the full text here.

It might well be a surprise to consider than the life and Presidency of John Fitzgerald Kennedy still has relevance in 2012.

Last week, when the Leveson Report was published, and the subject of the "free press" was being stretched to breaking point, I thought of Kennedy and the press of his time. It came as something of a shock to America, some years after Kennedy's death, to learn that he had the most unquenchable sexual appetite. He was neither discrete about his conquests, nor faithful to his wife. It was an open secret amongst White House staff, the Secret Service, and - amazingly - the White House Press Corps. Kennedy was having illicit relationships with interns, secretaries, prostitutes and numerous others, sometimes even in the White House.

It seem inconceivable today that Kennedy could have got away with this right under the noses of the press. It's not much of an exaggeration to say that Kennedy made Bill Clinton look like a shy Boy Scout. So how did he get away with it? Simple. Although the press knew that it was going on, the collective decision of the newspapers at the time was that Kennedy's personal morality, or the state of his marriage, was the business of the Kennedys alone. It was held that it didn't affect JFK's ability as a President and besides, it just wasn't "done" to expose a man's infidelities in 1963. It wasn't in the Public Interest. How times and attitudes have changed. It's an interesting contrast; reporters in possession of material that they could have published but chose not to. Now we have such information published purely because we can, regardless of whether there is true public interest or not. They publish because they can; they do not consider if they should. They publish in the name of the "free press" and occasionally vomit apologies over those who have been affected by their lack of judgement.

We could perhaps draw an analogy to someone with eating disorders. Presented with an endless array of food, they will gorge themselves until they are incapacitated, followed perhaps by resentfully regurgitating all over those around them. A more rational person will evaluate the food and make a wise choice about what to consume, and will have no need of vomiting.

Of course by today's standards, the extramarital relationships of a President would be inarguably in the public interest. In the time of John Major's Government, and the infamous "Back To Basics" campaign of family values, it turns out that practically everyone was at it. Hyposcrisy of the highest order. However, I don't much care if a certain footballer or celebrity has been sleeping with people they shouldn't have, unless their "selling point" is family values or honesty for example. To me that is not in the public interest, however much the public may be interested. There is a distinction to be made.

I thought about Kennedy some more. Perhaps the most well known of his quotations comes from that inaugural address in 1961:

And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.

Kennedy inspired a generation of Americans. He created the Peace Corps, a group of volunteers doing good things all over the country and the world. The Freedom Riders sought to oppose inequality in the South.

Fast forward to today. Enter David Cameron. Like JFK, Cameron is the wealthy son of a wealthy father, and the husband of a wealthy wife. Cameron has his "Big Society". So why hasn't Cameron's "vision" taken off in the same way that Kennedy's did?

It could be the times. It could be that we are more cynical now. My own opinion is that whilst asking for the help of the nation, Kennedy did not simultaneously demonise the poor in America, lamblasting the "something for nothing culture" while at the same time asking the people to contribute voluntarily. Kennedy did not set the American classes against each other, or promote inequality. Kennedy was wise and politically astute, Cameron is not.

Kennedy's Inaugural speech finished with this paragraph:

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.

"Ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you." You can argue that the population was politically more naive in 1961, before Nixon and Watergate, but it seems plainly obvious today that any politician who came out with this line would get laughed off the podium. Perhaps these words should be permanently displayed in the corridors of Westminster.

Who'd have thought that the late John F. Kennedy would still be teaching us things, nearly 50 years after his death?

What now for the UK Press?

2012-11-29T21:28:00.001+00:00

Today we finally heard from Lord Justice Leveson and his conclusions from his eight-month inquiry about press standards and their relationship with politicians and police.
Predictably there has been generally more focus on press standards rather than the other terms of Leveson's remit. In recent days there has been a lot of hyperbole, most of it from sections of the press. Some of it has been disingenuous to the point of being deliberately false. One of the worst, or most vocal, has been Fraser Nelson of The Spectator. Nelson made headlines the day before the report was published by announcing that The Spectator would nit participate in any sort of statutory regulation, as if there were a choice.
Earlier today at 7.42pm Nelson tweeted this: "By my maths, the moment of maximum danger lasted 99 minutes: from Leveson proposing state licensing of press to Cameron rejecting it."
This statement is provably false on two counts. Firstly, Leveson never proposed state licencing of the press. On the contrary, he said that his proposal "could not be characterised as state regulation". Secondly the Prime Minister has not rejected Leveson's proposal. He has stated that much thought and caution should be entered into before going down that road. Either Nelson has been wilfully false or, giving the benefit of the doubt, he has simply seen what he expected to see whether it was there or not.
There has been a few instances where people who should know better have not been altogether forthcoming. For example, David Blunkett MP was on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme this morning discussing this issue. Unusually we had a Conservative MP, George Eustice, advocating regulation whilst Blunkett (a Labour former Home Secretary) wanted none of it. What the listener was never told is that Blunkett is paid over £49000 per year by Murdoch-owned press companies. There are several members who are, either clearly or otherwise, with vested interests in the press retaining the current regime.
Another tactic which is being used, unwisely, is an attempt to draw this issue down party lines. Liam Fox MP, whose ministerial career was torpedoed by the press, being the most egregious. He tweeted earlier;
"PM's instincts correct. Freedom to the right, regulation to the left. "One Nation" Labour exposed for the statists they are. #Leveson"
This conveniently ignores that there are approximately 40 Tory MPs who support regulation as well as Labour MPs who oppose it. This was a lazy partisan statement when clearly cross-party cooperation is what is required. Fox should remember that even the Deputy Prime Minister doesn't support Cameron. It shows politicians to be self serving and childishly territorial.
Leveson was clear that at times the behaviour of the press was totally unacceptable. That was perhaps an understatement. The press drove the daughter of actor Denholm Elliot to suicide. It has hounded various celebrities over their weight and their personal lives. It has notoriously hacked the phones of many many people including politicians, celebrities, murder victims families, and other people such as the Hillsborough campaigners and, unbelievably, the lawyer of the phone hacking victims!
The press knew this activity was illegal at the time and certainly morally wrong. It has gone through people's bins and even tried to use the children of their quarries as a lever to get them to talk to them. They knew it was wrong and they knew it was happening. They knew it was not the actions of a single rogue reporter as they initially said.
The press was aware of the laws of contempt of court and libel, yet this did not stop certain sections from announcing the guilt of Christopher Jeffries in the Jo Yeates murder case. Even if Jeffries had actually been guilty, their actions would have greatly reduced his chances of getting a fair trial. It could even had prevented a trial from taking place at all. Jeffries was hounded for weeks by reporters and forced into hiding.
The press, collectively, has not allowed the threat of regulation by its peers to dissuade it from not just printing stories that are intrusive, salacious and needless, it has employed unlawful and distasteful methods to collate the information in the first place. With this background, how can we trust the press to continue to arbitrate on its own conduct? This situation is untenable.
This is a situation entirely of their own making. If the press did not want to be treated like schoolchildren, then it shouldn't have acted like irresponsible adolescents.
The press, in attempting to justify itself, says that stories like the MP expenses scandal would not have been possible with state regulation. It's true that sometimes the press does print stories that are gained by clandestine measures that are unquestionably in the public interest. The expenses scandal is perhaps the best example of this. However I do not see why proper regulation could not have a true public interest test, either prior to or after publication.

I see no reason whatsoever why the print media cannot be regulated by OFCOM as broadcast media has been for a long time. The press might argue that broadcasters are required to be impartial. There is a good case that the same should be required from newspapers and, dare I say, The Spectator. However I see nothing wrong with opinion based news as long as its clear that there is an agenda.

The Police Service Still Shies Away From Examination

2012-11-24T10:40:00.001+00:00

I was never the sort to pull legs off spiders or burn them under a magnifying glass. I was more interested in using that magnifying glass to examine, to search for fascinating detail and to learn. I grew a little more wary of examining spiders when, at about the age of six, one that was languishing in our old enamel bath bit my enquiring hand.

Obviously I meant it no harm, but it reacted with an instinctive defence mechanism. It lashed out against me in the only way it could.

A similarly thoughtless and unnecessary act of retribution has been meted out to a brave man of unimpeachable integrity, James Patrick. James is a serving officer in the Metropolitan Police. Earlier this year, dismayed by the onset of police reform driven by ideology rather than logic, by vested interests instead of necessity, James wrote a series of blogs called The Police Debating Directive. It is here on Blogspot.

In these well written blogs, he follows the trails and connections of most, if not all, of the key players involved. All, and I do mean all, of the information used is in the public domain, available to anyone with a search engine and an inquisitive nature. Like someone unpicking a sweater, he follows the threads wherever they go, as the edifice unravels around him. Not a single piece of information, save James's general experiences of being a serving officer, has come from any privileged sources.

It was in the process of reading these blogs that I discovered that the Association of Chief Police Officers, ACPO, is actually a limited company. Yes you read that right. A limited company is at the head of the UK Police service, and has been for years. Do I discern a conflict of interest?

The blogs relentlessly followed the motive forces behind police reform. The light shone by James got brighter and brighter even though the path got ever darker. Every measured statement is supported by facts in linked or footnoted articles.

In order to generate some much needed funds for the charity Care Of Police Survivors, the blogs were collated and self published into a book called The Rest Is Silence. This is available in Kindle form as well as hard copy and I heartily recommend you find a way of reading these collated essays.

The book and the content began to attract a wider audience. It gained attention in police stations across the country, by operational officers as well as those "upstairs".

It was almost inevitable that the spider chose to bite. James has been served with disciplinary papers for Gross Misconduct by the Met. I assume someone feels that James has brought the Met or service as a whole into disrepute. As I said on Twitter when I learned of this; "Some things are sad. Some things are predictable. Some are sadly predictable."

Disrepute. Yet what could be further from the truth? Had the subject of the blogs been a major corporation or even, say, the NHS, then the questions James has raised would, or should, be causing a great deal of soul searching in the national press and Parliament.

But this spider doesn't like to be examined too closely. Especially by one of its own. As soon as the cover was lifted, it scurried away in search of another hiding place and went into defence mode.

It is an accepted fact in the sciences that the very act of observation changes the nature of the thing you seek to examine. Except the dark and deep recesses of the police service.

Don't get me wrong, ACPO is mostly happy to throw its foot soldiers to the wolves periodically, to give the impression of being progressive. However when it comes to questions of real leadership, ACPO suddenly loses its fighting spirit. We could only speculate as to why. A cynic might say that Chief Officers are too busy toadying up to Government, ensuring their future knighthood or Peerage. In some cases both. Did anyone else notice that at the height of the Plebgate issue, Met Commissioner Bernard Hogan Howe refused to back the accounts of his officers in Downing Street, instead issuing a joint statement with the Cabinet Secretary encouraging everyone to 'move on'. In the last week or so, with Andrew Mitchell safely resigned, and almost as everyone forgot the matter, Hogan Howe now decides to say publicly that he thinks the officers were telling the truth.

I wonder, was the fence he was sitting on so high it took him that long to get down from it, or did he have at least one eye fixed on a cosy seat in the Lords to go with his police pension? I can't answer that question, but if I was a serving Met officer, I'd want an answer to that question. And one other question. Why is shining a light on (at best) morally questionable conduct by Ministers, Senior Officers, and think-tanks considered Gross Misconduct?

In the light of recent revelations about Hillsborough, the public needs to know that the upper echelons of the service are open to scrutiny. That it is not only open to examination, but welcomes the opportunity to show how the service has changed since 1989. That is, if it has at all.

The scandal of Hillsborough was that senior officers changed the accounts of lower ranking officers to silence or stifle criticism of those at the top. That philosophy still seems alive and well in 2012.

Smoke & Mirrors?

2012-11-22T16:33:00.002+00:00

Today, 22nd November, the 41 Police & Crime Commissioners take office for the first time. Before lunchtime, we had seen the first casualty. The Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset Police announced his "retirement" as Sue Mountstevens settled in for her first day in the job.

Nearly all of the candidates up and down the country campaigned on the promise of making police "more visible" on our streets. This sounds great, but there was usually little substance behind these claims. Some promised to achieve this through the use of Special Constables, and I've discussed this before - here and here.

The new PCC for Staffordshire, Matthew Ellis says in this article:

“There are simple solutions to some of the problems we have. Why are such a large proportion of vehicles unmarked? If we mark them up you could instantly double the visibility of police on the streets.

“I haven’t been able to find an answer as to why so many are unmarked, but we will do so.”

I'll cut Mr Ellis a bit of slack as it's his first day in the job, but if he'd asked a few of his new colleagues he might have found out these reasons, for starters;

The vehicle isn't marked because it doesn't contain a police officer. Scenes of Crime and Crime Prevention are just two roles that used to be filled by police officers and are now done by civilian employees of the Police or, increasingly, private companies under contract.
The vehicle isn't marked because it's used for covert operations. D'OH! CID, Traffic, even neighbourhood and proactive teams all use unmarked cars for a very good reason. Sorry Mr Ellis, but if you don't understand that you're not fit for the role of PCC. But then, you probably think all the police are there for is to cut crime.
Times when discretion is called for even if it's not actually for covert reasons. I would imagine that Family Liaison Officers might well use unmarked cars.

The biggest problem with this that I have is that if we mark up ALL police vehicles, regardless of whether or not an operational officer is inside it, then this is little more than an attempt to fool the public into thinking that there are more operational officers around than there actually are. We really might as well put cardboard cutouts around our neighbourhoods. (I know, some forces have actually done this already)

I've been taken to task via my blog, correctly, for having a go at PCSOs. Not PCSOs themselves, just the role. It's a role I disagreed with when it was introduced. PCSOs do a valuable job as part of the policing family. That's all well and good, but they are not sworn police officers - which is what the public actually wants. More than that - it's what the public thinks they are seeing when a PCSO is walking a beat.

I had a similar argument with West Yorkshire Police a couple of years ago. I witnessed some appalling driving by two cars from West Yorkshire Police, out of force area and without blue lights, and I phoned them to complain. To cut a long story short, the two cars were from the Driving School. The occupants were learning advanced response driving. I was told that the training cars used to be unmarked precisely because they could or had caused this sort of embarrassment to the force in the past, but that the Home Office had insisted that all training cars be marked to "increase visibility". What is the point of making them more visible if they are to all intents & purposes, not on operational duty? If my house is burgled, will those training cars respond? Of course not. So it's basically a confidence trick perpetrated on the public. I might as well paint "POLICE" on the side of my own car for all the good it would do.

So is this what being a PCC is about, in reality? Finding more ways to fool the public into thinking that they have more police officers than they actually have? If this is the case, then we can see why PCCs were introduced. It's a way to "democratically buffer" the blame for this from central Government, the ones who started this "smoke and mirrors" campaign.

Tory Hypocrisy on Turnout

2012-11-16T13:00:00.000+00:00

The Police & Crime Commissioner votes took place yesterday, and turnout was low, as expected. Before the elections, both Theresa May (Minister for Government Incompetence) and Damian Green (Minister for Police Privatisation) both refused to specify a minimum turnout for the elections.

This is not surprising, given that the Tories have been vociferous in their opposition to strike ballots with turnout lower than they think should be valid.

Here's a few examples.

Francis Maude and Charlie Elphicke - Public Administration Committee - 28/11/2011 (Link)

Q412 Charlie Elphicke: Minister, isn’t there a basic point here that the strikes are taking place on turnouts of between a quarter and a third? How can it possibly be right for the few to hold to ransom the many? That is not just in the union movement, but across the country as a whole. [Emphasis added]

Mr Maude: It is true that the ballots held by the biggest unions-Unite, GMB, PCS, UNISON-had a turnout in no case of more than a third, and one case of not much more than a quarter; they were between 25% and 33%. Some of the other unions, particularly the smaller unions, had higher turnouts, in a couple of cases over 50%. That is the way the law is. Those union leaders who actually call for strike action on the basis of these extraordinarily low turnouts, particularly when they have argued that this is the most important issue facing their members for a generation, have a limited claim on legitimacy. In most circumstances, I think union leaders would have chosen not to go ahead on those very low turnouts.

Does it justify changing the law? That is not our first response. We think the strike laws, for the most part, work reasonably well, but every time there is a very low turnout, and a strike called on the basis of that turnout, the case for change, and the advocates for change, will feel their hand is strengthened.

Later in the same exchange, Francis Maude says

"The CBI have argued that there should be a requirement for there to be at least a 50% turnout; regardless of what the percentage voting in favour of industrial action is, the ballot would not be valid unless there was a 50% turnout".

In this Telegraph article, on the PCS strikes shortly before the Olympics, there are rich pickings to be had on the matter.

Dominic Raab, the Tory MP, said: “These reckless and damaging strikes strengthen the case for a voting threshold, so the militant minority can’t hold the hard-working majority to ransom.

“It can’t be right that union bosses can paralyse vital infrastructure and humiliate the nation on a malicious whim, when just 11 per cent of their members support strike action.”

Fellow Tory Priti Patel said

"Any ballot in which fewer than half of those eligible to vote do so should be ruled invalid. This strike is yet another irresponsible protest by those who are once again putting their own interests before that of our county.”

The outspoken Conor Burns had this to say:

“The idea that these cloth cap colonels can hold the public to ransom on a turnout of 11 per cent is grotesque and anti-democratic.”

This was the contribution of that well-known oasis of good advice, Francis Maude:

"If very disruptive strike action is carried out on the basis of these weak ballots, weak turnouts, the case for reform gets stronger.”

At the time of the article, the Minister on the sharp end of these strikes before the Olympics was Damian Green who by coincidence is now Policing Minister. He said this of the strike action:

“This is a completely selfish and irresponsible decision by the PCS leadership. With only around one in 10 voting for industrial action, they have no authority to call their members out on strike.”

Can we draw any other conclusion from this other than that the Tories are all for Democracy as long as the vote goes the way they want it to?

Why I Intend To Vote For My PCC

2012-11-12T17:09:00.001+00:00

The Police & Crime Commissioner (PCC) elections are on this coming Thursday.

Many people, including serving and retired police officers have encouraged people not to vote in the election at all. The purpose, as I understand it, is to carry a message of low turnout back to the Home Office and Theresa May to show that the "public" don't want elected police commissioners.

Assuming that my interpretation is correct, I suspect that this would probably reflect the public mood. The percentage of the population that actively want PCCs would, I believe, be a vanishingly small number. A lot less than 10% but that's just my feel from listening to media coverage and from social media such as Twitter.

My own position is that I think that the PCC concept is flawed, foolish, unrealistic, unwanted and has the potential to create enormously damaging situations up and down the country. It's a costly waste of money at a time when experienced police officers are being forced to retire, despite the desperate claims of the Minister Damian Green claiming on BBC Question Time last week that it was ok as the costs of the PCC elections came from a different budget.

This strategy, of encouraging non-participation, omits one crucial element. The Coalition Government long ago abandoned any sort of pretence of representing the public view. The only agenda that matters is their own, whatever that may be. Unless criticism or opposition is vociferous and loudly carried in the media, they will just press ahead regardless; arrogantly assured of their own superiority. The Government in general, and the Home Office under Theresa May in particular, has no sense of shame. It will press ahead with whatever crackpot scheme, or defend any lie no matter how preposterous, as May has shown time & time again.

So why vote? A Labour candidate was recently asked on Twitter how a Labour candidate could stand when Labour opposed the whole PCC concept. The answer to both questions is simple.

The elections will happen on Thursday. Whether you vote or not. Whether Labour put up a candidate or not. As it happens, there are no "extreme" candidates (by which I mean EDL or BNP or suchlike) in my area. However, I immediately discount the Tory candidate on principle as we know what Tory police policy contains. There are a handful of Independent candidates. One of those could not (for some reason unknown) manage to supply even a photo or brief statement of intent to the website www.choosemypcc.com so I have no option but to exclude him. He seems a nice enough bloke (we have spoken briefly on Twitter) but I know nothing about him. The other Independents either don't carry enough gravitas for the role in my opinion, or there's just something that doesn't quite click about them for me.

My vote on Thursday will be going to John Prescott. Yes, he's a politician, but he has experience of life, as a working man. He's managed even larger budgets than the Humberside Area, and I know he knows the area and the people well. He may not be perfect, or all things to all people, but he seems to me to be the only viable candidate in my area.

You may not agree with the PCC concept. You might like to send a low turnout message to Theresa May. Mrs May is arrogant enough to not care if turnout nationally is 5% or 85%. PCCs are here, and they're here now. Even if you can't find a candidate you endorse 100%, then find the one that you think will do the least damage and vote for them. It's not a positive message, I know, but it's more positive than not voting at all. Come Friday evening, your area will have a PCC whether you voted or not, whether you wanted one or not. So please, pick the best of the available candidates and vote. Not voting, and getting a disastrous PCC via a low turnout seems to me to be a Pyrrhic victory that will do no one any good. Least of all you.

Special Constables Part 2

2012-11-09T22:42:00.001+00:00

Earlier this week, I wrote about how PCC candidates are planning to use (or misuse) Special Constables. I ended that blog by saying that the role needed to be radically rethought to cope with modern demands.

I've had a few thoughts since then. It's as though it's been brewing inside me for years.

The most obvious thing is that there needs to be some way of balancing the flexible needs of the Specials with the needs of the organisation, to know that people will turn up when planned. Fire brigades manage it with retained firefighters, so it can't be beyond the wit of man.

Secondly, Special Constables need a damn sight more protection than they currently have. There can be few jobs where the dividing line between being the hero, and being nailed to the wall by your Force, the Courts and the Press is so thin. To do so from a voluntary standpoint, on the face of it, makes no sense at all. Why would ANYONE do this? The Police Federation have never looked fondly upon Specials for several reasons I won't go into here. There needs to be a national body to look after the interests of Specials.

Special Constabularies really need to differentiate between those who are really looking to get stuck in (whether as a route to the regulars or not) and those who wish to retain the status quo as assistants to the regulars. Bedfordshire was doing something similar by around 2003 but it didn't go far enough.

My last point is a bit more political. I mentioned how Specials felt exploited compared to the TA or fire. How on earth does this Government expect to be able to recruit & retain people to fill, voluntarily, a gap in policing that THEY created, whilst a series of millionaire politicians (who have mostly never done a days real work in their lives, and will never have wondered how they will afford their kids' shoes) bang on about the evils of a 'something for nothing' culture. The irony seems to have completely escaped them.

"Come and work for free to help us silly old twits out of a hole. We do seem to have cocked up rather. Oh, I should probably mention that if you stuff up in any way you'll be completely on your own and will probably end up in court. If you need us we'll be over here demonising people whose jobs we destroyed for claiming benefits."

Special Constables and PCCs

2012-11-08T12:27:00.002+00:00

There seems to be much debate in the media at the moment about the role of Special Constables in the post-Winsor austerity era, particularly as they seem to be being used as a football by candidates for Police & Crime Commissioners.

Some candidates have stated that they will allocate Special Constables to operate in particular areas, an intention which has been criticised as impinging on the operational independence of the Chief Constable.

Other sections of the political spectrum as suggesting using Specials as, effectively, a replacement for the "regular" police officers that are being lost around the country as part of the Government cuts to policing.

As you may know, if you've read some of my earlier blogs or follow me on Twitter, I was a Special Constable for about eight years, from 1998 to 2006. I have never applied to be a full-time officer, and have no axe to grind against regular officers who do a great job in difficult circumstances. I was proud of my time serving in the Special Constabulary and it's something that I will always be glad I did.

Now to deal with the two points raised earlier.

Firstly, it seems blatantly obvious that allocating Special Constables to a particular problem or area is an operational decision, depending on several factors including frequency, hours, skills required and risk assessment. It is not a decision for a PCC. (Similarly, it is equally ridiculous for a PCC to say that that won't let "their police" get involved with a potential public order event like a badger cull, but that's another story)

The second point is that the people proposing to use Specials in lieu of paid police officers appear to be assuming that the skill levels are equivalent, or that the skill level of your average Special is sufficient (which is the same as saying that regular officers are overskilled or surplus to requirements). A full time Constable has a two year probationary period. Assuming approximately 2050 hours a year, that's a total of 4100 working hours, during which their paperwork is monitored closely and their skills assessed by a Tutor Constable for a lot of that time. Specials are "targeted" to do about 16 hours per month (many don't do this much), making approximately 200 hours per year. So after 20 years service, a Special will have put in as many hours as a Constable just out of probation. The elephant in the room is that, in my experience, not many Specials last more than about 5 years before leaving. They leave for a number of reasons; some leave because they become "regular" officers. Some leave because they feel that they can't offer sufficient time in between family and work commitments. A lot leave because they feel under valued and exploited, and with good reason. Members of the TA and Retained Firefighters are paid for their service and are well trained to do their jobs. Special Constables earn only travelling expenses and limited subsistence. Training leaves a lot to be desired. When I joined, if I recall correctly, initial training was 14 weeks of one evening a week. By the time I left, that was down to 8 weeks.

Special Constables are of course a much cheaper way to provide a uniformed presence on the streets, in the same way as a Kia is a cheaper mode of transport than a BMW. From the outside they might even look identical, but underneath the structure and quality will be worlds apart.

In summary, the vast majority of Special Constables are simply not capable, however well intentioned, of filling the role of a full time patrol officer. In my station we had one person, who was in a position financially to be able to work as a Special nearly every day, and so she was in practice a fully fledged copper. She could build a file and handle tasks that most (95% +) wouldn't have had a clue how to start.

The other problem is resourcing. With Specials being volunteers, it's extremely difficult to organise (and rely on) numbers for any given operation. With something as simple as traffic management for Remembrance Sunday, operational plans could be completely scuppered if one or two Specials did not turn up as planned. The reverse problem also exists. I had many a night where I arrived at the station and waited 2 hours to be crewed up with someone. This happened regardless of whether I gave notice that I would be in, or not. Some Specials even get fed up with being left waiting around and leave the service.

I would advise any PCC or Chief Constable that basing any sort of plans on Special Constables is indeed a soft foundation. It would be impossible to know with any certainty how many Specials you can rely on having on a given date, or what skill sets those Specials will have. I would strongly advise SMTs to plan as though you have NO Special Constables at all, then use what ever additional resources you have to bolster the full time force, to treat them as a bonus, if you will.

Finally, there is a question of exposure. If you do any sort of risk assessment, one of the things you have to consider is how often the people/person is exposed to the hazard(s). Policing is a dangerous job, of that there can be no doubt. There aren't going to be many people willing to exponentially increase their exposure to hazard whilst remaining an unpaid, undervalued and dispensible resource. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool or a member of this Government.

The creation of PCSOs was the policing equivalent of booting an open goal ten feet over the crossbar. What should have happened was the creation of some sort of more solid platform for the Special Constabulary, perhaps moving them towards a paid retainer or contract which would have made resourcing much easier.

The whole concept of Special Constables needs to be revised to match the expectations and requirements of the 21st Century.

Morality and Priorities, US Style

2012-11-05T12:28:00.000+00:00

It's the day before the 2012 US Presidential election.

It's being billed as the tightest election since, well, the last one actually. Even more than last time, the country seems totally divided by their choice of candidate. Tempers are getting flared, strong opinions expressed. I even saw a tweet this morning saying that the author wasn't voting for Obama because "He's a stupid Mooslim communist [n-word]. Honestly being a [n-word] is enough for me." I was absolutely staggered when I read that. It would be prefectly legitimate to disagree with Obama's policies but I didn't realise that there were really people Neanderthal enough to hold views like that but still work a a computer.

Some people from the US have even told non-US tweeters to mind their own effing business with regard to the US election. I can understand this, to a point. I don't think we British would be too overjoyed about people from outside Britain trying to influence the 2015 election. The problem is, the US is not, in practice, as insular as it thinks it is. It is certainly not some tony little island which has little influence on the rest of the world. What happens in the US sends ripples, shockwaves and Tsunamis around the rest of the global population. America sets the agenda for the rest of the world in a way that virtually no other country does.

I like America very much. I enjoy being there whether it is for work or not. I get along well with the vast majority of people I meet. A couple of my closest friends are American. The mindset of America (as opposed to individual Americans) is interesting. I heard this morning on BBC Radio 4 that Obama has been criticised for not giving an unreserved endorsement of "American Exceptionalism". This is a phrase which according to some, means that the USA has a God-given destiny, a place above and beyond all other nations, superior to all. Obama has this to say about it in 2009:

"I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."

My interpretation of this is that Obama believes in the best of America in the same way that Brits are passionate about Britain, which would seem to be a fairly reasonable position. From this quotation, and from my impression of his Presidency, doesn't seem to think that America is superior to other nations, morally or otherwise. Again, I think that's a sensible view and might explain why Obama is extremely popular around the world:

I'd like to think that American voters (especially supporters of Romney) would look at this data and wonder if they are looking at the issues in the correct way. Instead, I worry that some (like our cave-dwelling racist I quoted earlier) would deliberately and specifically vote the opposite way. It seems extremely odd to me that in 2012, a major political candidate can be criticised for not being arrogant enough to think America is special.

This might be a good point to mention that whilst working in America in the past 10 years, I have been asked, on two separate occasions in two different States, what language we speak in England.

Sometimes I just can't identify with the logic of some aspects of the American system. I'm from a country that's had a National Health System since 1948 although our present Prime Minister is trying his hardest to abolish it. It seems a minimum criteria for any civilised country, let alone one that preaches its version of morality, democracy and human rights around the world, to have universal healthcare. It amazes me that America, where the Constitution states that all men are created equal, has made it to the 21st Century before universal healthcare becomes available.

In fact, in briefly researching the US Constituion, I found this:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." (Emphasis added)

A person from Republicans Abroad speaking on the BBC's Question Time last week said that the country couldn't afford universal healthcare due to the size of the deficit. This is the same deficit that George W. Bush created by giving tax breaks to the wealthy and going to war. He inherited a budget surplus from Bill Clinton. Would George W. Bush and his Republicans have backed universal healthcare in 2001, with or without 9/11? Of course not. I'm assuming that it's this same universal healthcare that earns Obama the perjorative tag of Communist.

Take a look at the next graph. [source]UK public debt, as a percentage of GDP, was almost 250% when the NHS was created. We still created it, and sustained it until this year. It doesn't take a great leap of logic to say that a healthier population works better, with corresponding increases in GDP. In fact, in the years following the creation of the NHS, public debt went DOWN even though the public purse was now paying for the NHS!

America - the country that can afford to go to war in other countries and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, but can't afford to provide decent healthcare services for its own citizens.

Welcome to the priorities of the American Right in 2012.

Security and Cowboy Builders

2012-07-19T12:30:00.003+01:00

Imagine that you're getting a builder in to put up an extension, or maybe a conservatory. You'd almost certainly get quotations from at least 2 or 3 different firms, and compare not just the price, but also the scope of supply for the job, i.e. what's included in the price. You might confirm some details, such as if the contractor is responsible for disposing of waste, or skip hire etc. You would probably check the builder's references, even possibly going to speak to past clients, to get an idea of the quality and reliability of the builder and his team.

When all this information is in, you make an informed choice about which builder to choose. It's probably a balance between price, quality and reliability. In terms of time, and also financially, it's usually wise to have some contingency in place.

World English Dictionary
contingency (kənˈtɪndʒənsɪ)

— n , pl -cies
1. a. a possible but not very likely future event or condition; eventuality
b. ( as modifier ): a contingency plan
2. something dependent on a possible future event
3. a fact, event, etc, incidental to or dependent on something else
4. in systemic grammar
a. Compare adding modification of the meaning of a main clause by use of a bound clause introduced by a binder such as if, when, though, or since
b. ( as modifier ): a contingency clause
5. logic
a. the state of being contingent
b. a contingent statement
6. dependence on chance; uncertainty
7. statistics
a. the degree of association between theoretical and observed common frequencies of two graded or classified variables. It is measured by the chi-square test
b. ( as modifier ): a contingency table ; the contingency coefficient

In the context that we've been discussing, a reasonable contingency plan might include things such as discovering that footings need to be deeper than anticipated, or perhaps an uncharted drain. Timings might, depending upon the circumstances, be changed by the weather or perhaps sickness. The broad picture from the definitions above is that the events considered in a contingency are possible, but perhaps not likely or maybe even incidental to the matter at hand.

I doubt that anyone has ever undertaken a building project with a particular supplier and included as a contingency that the work will be done so badly, that you end up having to pay someone else to do it again, (or even do it yourself) or that the builder will fail to turn up. If you even suspected that either of these situations might occur, only the most arrogant or stupid of people would continue with that contractor.

Yet, if the Government (specifically, Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt) is to be believed, this is exactly what has happened. All week, Hunt has been playing down the utter and total failure of G4S to provide the required number of security guards, saying that it's completely normal for a contractor to fail to deliver, and that contingency plans were in place for this.

Hunt continues to maintain that the Government had been monitoring G4S closely during the run-up to the Games. Again, IF this is true, then it is inescapable that the monitoring was not close enough.

Hunt and Theresa May find themselves in an inextricable mess entirely of their own making. The process has been mismanaged to the extent that nothing that they save, true or otherwise, can - or should - save their jobs. Both must go after the Olympics are over.

Mr Herbert, you doth protest too much

2012-07-13T12:11:00.000+01:00

I've recently discovered the online edition of Hansard, which shows the daily communications within the Commons and the Lords. It's recorded verbatim, which is really interesting. You get to see the whole conversation, not just the soundbites broadcast on the TV or radio news.

It's interesting because you don't have to rely on the recollections of others on who said what and to whom. To the less than transparent, however, this little fact can come back to bit you. Hard.

One such exchange caught my eye. It can be viewed here, at Column 738. I'll include the relevent section in full:

2. George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con): Whether she has considered bringing forward amendments to the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill to ensure that proposed police panels are representative of the geographical area they will serve. [70926]
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert): The Government have set out plans to ensure that police and crime panels are representative of the places they serve. We tabled an amendment to the Bill in another place, allowing many panels to co-opt further members. This will enable local authorities to address geographical imbalances.
George Eustice: I thank the Minister for that response and welcome the amendment, which is obviously a step in the right direction. However, he will be aware of the particular concerns of people in Cornwall that they might not get a fair geographic representation. What additional reassurance can he give that the Home Secretary will ensure that Cornwall is fairly represented on Devon and Cornwall police panel, and will he agree to meet a delegation from Cornwall council to discuss this issue?
Nick Herbert: I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns—they have been put to me by other hon. Friends. The amendment that we moved in the other place will allow for the nomination of an additional five members to the panel. Approval for that will lie with the Secretary of State, although there must be regard to geographical balance. I hope and believe therefore that we can reassure the people of Cornwall that they will be properly represented on these panels.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab): The Minister will agree on what lies at the heart and success of British policing—it should be by consent, local and rooted in the community. That is why I welcome what he has just said. Will he also agree, however, that it is vital that our senior police officers have spent a year or two on the beat in the local community? Will he hit on the head these ludicrous press reports that the Government are thinking of bringing in an elite group of officers—super-duper graduates, Bullingdon club boys—to be slotted in straight away to run our police services? Policing should be local, and every chief constable should have served on the beat.
Nick Herbert: That is a travesty of the Government’s position. We have asked Tom Winsor to consider these matters. The right hon. Gentleman should pay more attention to the views of the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall, which he expressed in an article in The Times today, co-written by me. He points out that the police have not made sufficient progress on diversity and that one way to address that might be to consider additional points of entry. We also point out that operational experience would be necessary.

Well well well. I've highlighted the bit I found most interesting. Mr Herbert, I think you doth protest too much.

It doesn't take much intellect to see how this Government handles objection to it's more outlandish ideas.

Initiallty it discredits media reports, saying that these things are being examined in an 'independent' report.
The report 'miraculously' recommends these exact measures, but the Government says that the outcomes of the report are in 'negotiation'.
Finally, the proposal becomes established fact.

It's true that the direct entry scheme proposed by Winsor is in negotiation, but we all know that police officers have no rights of real, meaningful negotiation.

I wonder, when Direct Entry becomes a fact, will someone challenge Herbert in the Commons to say that the Government has implemented something which the Minister said was a "travesty of the Government's position"? In fact, if you look closely at what was said, you'll notice that Herbert says it's a travesty, but then says "we've asked Tom Winsor to consider these matters". I wonder what else he was asked to "consider"? So much for "independent" eh, Mr Herbert?

I shall continue to look back over the Hansard records. It will be fascinating to see what other nuggets the record throws up.

Calamity May should resign

2012-07-12T22:09:00.000+01:00

The G4S Olympics fiasco has hopefully put paid to the theory that private companies are sleek, dynamic and frugal compared to bloated, wasteful and inefficient public services.

G4S has been under close scrutiny from the Home Office. Leaked documents show that even in April, Government officials had grave doubts that G4S would be able to recruit sufficient numbers of competent staff. Against this background, it is hard to take seriously the claims of the Home Secretary that all was thought to be well until Wednesday. The Defence Secretary said today that the ‘notice to move’ given to troops was shortened at the weekend, meaning that the actual decision was taken prior to that.

Mrs May is either incompetent, or has mislead Parliament with repeated assurances that all was on plan, when her department knew that the reality was nothing of the kind. If she didn’t know, she should have done. This follows her infamous Human Rights Act cat story, the Abu Hamza farce, and she has also become the second Home Secretary in history to be convicted of Contempt of Court. In the last few weeks she has also appointed a new Chief of HMIC as a deliberate affront to the Police Federation. She has lost the confidence of the police & public alike, and should if she had any honour she would resign. She has been, head & shoulders, the most calamitous Home Secretary in living memory. She even has her own hashtag on Twitter - #NoConfidenceInTheresaMay.

It’s particularly galling for the armed forces, when in the last two weeks thousands have been told that they will be made redundant. Within a short period of time, they’re told they’re not wanted, now they’re mopping up after G4S. Had the security operation been kept within the public sector, the primary objective would have been getting the personnel trained and in place in time. The primary objective of G4S is profit. Policing functions should never be outsourced, especially never to G4S who have proven time and time again that they cannot be trusted. They have already been caught falsifying reports in order not to incur contractual penalties.

Public service is about exactly that – service. Private companies exist to make profit for their shareholders, and any service that they provide is incidental.

Banking: What Lies Beneath?

2012-07-03T18:59:00.000+01:00

Today has really been a staggering day in the development of the Barclays scandal over LIBOR rate fixing. In the last two days, Chairman Marcus Agious, Chief Executive Bob Diamond and Chief Operating Officer Jerry del Missier have all resigned.

There have been calls for an inquiry, and the Government proposed an inquiry by the Treasury Select Committee, overseen by its Chairman, Conservative MP Andrew Tyrie. This has been rejected by Labour, who want to see a more impartial, judge-led inquiry similar to the Leveson inquiry. Such an inquiry would undoubtedly not reflect well upon Labour, and it's a credit to Ed Miliband that this is his preferred form of inquiry.

There's no doubt that the irregularities happened whilst Labour was in power, but it remains a point of discussion as to whether they occurred because of the "lack of regulation" by Labour. The Tories say so, although it would appear that at the time, they were actually campaigning for less regulation. Both Cameron and Osborne have said that they "would like nothing more than seeing Ed Balls in the dock". Ed Balls was the City Minister at the time.

So, with the gun seemingly aimed squarely at Labour, why on earth would the Government shy away from a judge-led inquiry which would undoubtedly be embarrassing (if not actually incriminating) for Labour? Could it possibly be that although there may be a gun aimed at Labour, there is a whole battery of cannons aimed at the Tories?

This is a Coalition Government that has spent the last two years blaming everything that they can think of on the previous Labour Government. Why on earth would they want to miss an opportunity for an independent inquiry to land all the blame for this at Labour's door?

Could it be that the Tories know what lies beneath?

More spin than my washing machine

2012-07-02T23:13:00.000+01:00

Today saw the release of a report by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, "Policing in Austerity: One Year On". You can read the full report here. The broad aim of the report was to measure the impact of austerity on the quality of service being delivered across the country.

In my last blog entry, I talked about how politicians use (or abuse) language to hide a multitude of sins. I spoke of how you often have to read in the gaps between the words, to see what is contained in the white space. I gave some typical examples of doublespeak used by politicians of all parties.

One example last week was when Nick Herbert MP (Policing Minister) was giving evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee regarding the appointment of Tom Winsor to the post of Chief Inspector of Constabulary. Mr Herbert referred to the police service as a "monopoly public service". This is quite a strange expression. I don't recall hearing it before in any other context. What was even more perplexing is that Mr Winsor used exactly the same phrase later when questioned by the Committee. It's an unusual phrase, used twice in the same afternoon. At this point, I'm tempted to question Winsor's much trumpeted "independence", but I won't. I'll leave that to you.

Even having written that blog, a week or so ago, I was wholly unprepared for the degree of absolutely blatant and barefaced spin and rubbish to emanate from the Twitter accounts of Nick Herbert and also even the official Twitter feed of the Home Office. Mr Herbert posted a series of messages emphasising the positive side of the HMIC report. He even went so far as to say that Labour's claims of risks to public safety and quality of service had been "demolished". Here's a summary of the report which Mr Herbert tweeted.

In interviews today, (especially with Cathy Newman on Channel 4 News) Mr Herbert was very keen on endlessly regurgitating the 'finding' that the "front line is being protected". What he conveniently neglected to say was the second half of the sentence. You can see it for yourself above. It's a particularly odd and contradictory expression, and without asking the Chief of HMIC what exactly it means, it would be hard to be certain. However, reading in the spaces, as I mentioned earlier, I've come to this conclusion, which I'll give to you as an analogy. Imagine that your house was on fire, and you were frantically trying to fight the blaze with a hose pipe. You might be making progress against that fire, you might not be. In this situation, even if the fire was "under control", it would still be burning and consuming the contents and structure of your house. In these circumstances, I think it might be fair to say that you were protecting your house, but you were not preserving it.

Thw website dictionary.com has this definition of the term "preserve":

verb (used with object)

1. to keep alive or in existence; make lasting: to preserve our liberties as free citizens.

2. to keep safe from harm or injury; protect or spare.

3. to keep up; maintain: to preserve historical monuments.

4. to keep possession of; retain: to preserve one's composure.

5. to prepare (food or any perishable substance) so as to resist decomposition or fermentation.

Using the example I've given, and the definitions above, I think we can see what HMIC really meant. Others might disagree, but my best guess of what the phrase "the frontline is being protected although not preserved" is that the 43 police forces are fighting like mad to juggle their now meagre resources, in an attempt to maintain services. However, despite their best efforts, the fire is being - at best - kept at bay whilst consuming the service relentlessly.

Mr Herbert has set much store by trotting out the line about the proportion of frontline officers increasing. This may or may not be true, depending on your classification of the term "frontline". However, what it masks - deliberately in my opinion - is the overall reduction of officers. Mr Herbert crows loudly about the proportion of frontline officers increasing from 67% to 74%. However, when tackled about the fact that a larger proportion of a smaller number means that there are fewer officers, Mr Herbert complains that the quality of service isn't measured in numbers. If this is so, why go on about the proportions? This is just a cynical attempt to show the opposite of what is really happening.

"Service to the public has been largely maintained"

Again, Mr Herbert has been talking up the maintenance of the service to the public. Let me ask you - if the roof on your house "largely kept the water out" or if your car "largely operated reliably" - would you think this is acceptable? Probably not, and yet these are fairly trivial examples. Is it acceptable that the public service is only "largely" being maintained?

The sentence highlighted above had a "but" in the HMIC report, followed by

"There are some concerns around sustainability"

This sentence actually speaks for itself. Funnily enough, I didn't hear Mr Herbert mention this one. I wonder why?

How Language Hides a Multitude of Sins

2012-06-22T13:45:00.000+01:00

Adrian Mole wrote in his diaries "It rained solidly all afternoon. How can it rain "solidly"? What a strange mistress is the English language." What "he" was referring to at that time was the construction of a sentence where the meaning, as a whole, is totally different to the individual components, the juxtaposition between the adjective 'solid' and the noun 'rain'. Obviously you can't have solid rain, but we do refer to it raining solidly.

I'm finding more and more that I'm listening to the language that politicians (of all parties) use. Sometimes, what is more telling is the language that they don't use, and choose to substitute in its place. You really do have to read between the lines. Sometimes it's quite subtle, other times - as recently - less so.

The classic example is when a politician talks of making "difficult decisions". What this translates to is something that the Government wants to do, which it recognises is universally unpopular - despised even - but remains determined to do anyway. This is usually something driven by ideology, vested interests of lobbyists, or the ego of the person who thought of the idea.

When a political leader is exhibiting "strong leadership" - that really means that the party leader is determined to press ahead with something that even his own party hates.

"We are where we are" is a tacit admission that the speaker (or their party/Goverment) has dropped an almighty bollock in the past, but isn't willing to allow the discussion to focus on whose fault it is, i.e. theirs. It reminds me of the old joke about a person asking directions in Ireland. "You want to go to Dublin? Ah, I wouldn't start from here if I were you."

In the 90s, a Tory minister who resigned from his job saying "I want to spend more time with my family." really meant "I've been caught shagging my secretary but the News of the World hasn't published the story yet."

However, the current Government are masters of scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to euphemisms to mask their naked ideology, devoid of any sustainable logic whatsoever.

What the listener or viewer really needs to keep an ear out for at the moment, are the key phrases of the moment: "reform" and "partnering". The Home Sectretary (yes, the one with a criminal conviction for Contempt of Court) and the Policing Minister are particulary fond of them. The Health Secretary is a particular fan of "reform".

The Tories might well use other terms - but basically it all boils down to one thing. It's the Tory version of the "love that dare not speak its name":-

Privatisation.

It's what they're doing to the police service. It's what they've already done to the NHS. Goodness only knows what they'll think of next for "reform". What I do know, is that it won't be "transparency of MPs expenses and tax affairs". There's also about as much chance of "reform" of MPs pensions, as there is of Nick Clegg growing a spine.